• 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
Henrin said:
Lol! Really? You think it was adapted to be penetrated? Please, explain why you think that.
Click to expand...

Naw, human nature found a way.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And if sex didn't feel good but we wanted the species to survive we would still do it... .
Click to expand...

No kidding. I've been trying to explain to Gath that gays can reproduce for this reason (well, to have kids) for a long time and just doesn't seem to believe it.

I also find it bemusing how they ignore that jerking off feels good for the same exact reason sex does, and it in fact lowers the sex drive temporarily...so it acts counter to this "instinct" to reproduce. How come we're built so that our hands can reach down there so readily if orgasm is solely to encourage reproduction? How come anal sex feels good for that matter? They can't account for non-reproductive orgasm at all.
 
ChrisL said:
It is if you're straight. It makes perfect rational sense.
Click to expand...

only if you accept the premise that the main purpose of sex is procreation. I think humans are more evolved than that.
 
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...

You're projecting your feelings and experiences onto them. What feels good will vary from person to person for any given activity. For example, there are those people who enjoy being flogged. It feels good to them. You most likely would not think that it feels good. But I can guarantee you that I can find more than 72,000 individuals who find that it feels good. Let's examine your statement again, particularly your last line. But let's modify it a bit.


[Rape]doesn't feel good for [women]? :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...

Do you honestly think that just because it is the interaction of the penis and a vagina or anus or mouth that it feels good? If that is the case then you have to accede that when a woman is raped by a man or even when a man is raped by a woman, that it will feel good for the victim.

Henrin said:
Your point? Did I say anywhere that people will never want to have kids?
Click to expand...

That they do it to have kids and not for pleasure. Sex for pleasure and sex for procreation can and often do coincide, but they can also occur separately.

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?
Click to expand...

The human race has had birth rates that have fluxed up and down throughout history. At many times our death rate has surpassed our "replacement" (birth) rate. You point is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

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.
Click to expand...

Some may, but let's plug that into the assertion. People pro-create because it feels good. Then if feeling good is part of why people do it then people rape or get raped because it feels good. See the flaw in the logic there? Sure the stimulation is there, but do they feel good from it? What pleasure is a homosexual deriving from the act of sex with a person of the opposite gender. None. They're homosexuals.
 
Henrin said:
Not really. It's actually impossible.
Click to expand...

Impossible? Seems like it is successfully happening quite frequently every day in gay and straight communities.

BTW - teen girls were an adopter of anal sex. They made virginity pledges and sought to keep the pledges. So blow jobs and anal sex - and voila - technical virgins.:2razz:
 
year2late said:
Impossible? Seems like it is successfully happening quite frequently every day in gay and straight communities.
Click to expand...

Actually, many gay men do not enjoy/haven't done anal sex and only about 30% of straight couples even try it and the majority of those don't try it again. Considering that the body part in question can not adopt to be made to be penetrated by people just deciding to stick their dicks or other objects in there, no, it hasn't adopted for that purpose. What's next, the ear can be adopted for the penis? Come the **** on already.
 
Last edited:
Some people think that "normal" means "good". It just means consistent with average behavior, which might be good or bad. In this regard homosexuality isn't normal.

Nothing human is alien to nature.
 
As long as its 2 hotties and me its normal. If im not in on it, I condemn it!
 
It depends on how you define your terms. It's natural as it occurs in nature. If you're going to define normal as being true of the average, no, but then again, having blue eyes and being left handed isn't normal by that criteria either. Therefore, I reject that definition and say that it is something that ought to be acceptable, thus normal.
 
Cephus said:
It depends on how you define your terms. It's natural as it occurs in nature. If you're going to define normal as being true of the average, no, but then again, having blue eyes and being left handed isn't normal by that criteria either. Therefore, I reject that definition and say that it is something that ought to be acceptable, thus normal.
Click to expand...
I agree it depends on your definition of the terms, which of course, were not defined even when someone else tried to press that point.

But I would say it is Abnormal (maybe unnatural too) to have desire contrary to evolution's purpose for the design of each gender's respective genitalia obviously intended/fitted for reproduction, and the evolutionary reason for desire as well.

This is Not comparable to Right/Left-handedness so many have tried, with PC, to trivilialize it with. This is a significant contrary-to-procreation evolutionary purpose/design issue. And I imagine some/many people who are gay, struggle Emotionally with the problem. A problem that people with 'blue eyes' or left-handedness don't remotely have.

Does it occur in nature, sure. Many physical/sexual variants occur 'in nature'.
Some people would even label some other politically non-charged or rarer ones 'unnatural', but not in this sensitive and more benign case.

Which is not to say all people/variants are not deservant of 100% equal societal rights.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
But I would say it is Abnormal (maybe unnatural too) to have desire contrary to evolution's purpose for the design of each gender's respective genitalia obviously intended/fitted for reproduction, and the evolutionary reason for desire as well.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, we wouldn't see homosexuality being a factor in many species in nature. Clearly, evolution hasn't edited it out, therefore it is natural. It occurs in nature.
 
Cephus said:
If that was the case, we wouldn't see homosexuality being a factor in many species in nature. Clearly, evolution hasn't edited it out, therefore it is natural. It occurs in nature.
Click to expand...
Not so.
That's not an answer to the the condition's contrariness to the evolutionary design and purpose of sex and sexual organs.
It's merely stating that it isn't restricted to humans.
Your PC is overriding your very good science. This is true of the vast majority of similarly smart people.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I agree it depends on your definition of the terms, which of course, were not defined even when someone else tried to press that point.

But I would say it is Abnormal (maybe unnatural too) to have desire contrary to evolution's purpose for the design of each gender's respective genitalia obviously intended/fitted for reproduction, and the evolutionary reason for desire as well.
Click to expand...
Consider the closest relative to humans in the animal kingdom: the Bonobo chimp. This critter will have sex with pretty much anything with a pulse. And they've still managed to survive as a species, so it doesn't appear that going beyond intra-species procreation was ever an evolutionary problem.

This is Not comparable to Right/Left-handedness so many have tried, with PC, to trivilialize it with. This is a significant contrary-to-procreation evolutionary purpose/design issue. And I imagine some/many people who are gay, struggle Emotionally with the problem. A problem that people with 'blue eyes' or left-handedness don't remotely have.
Click to expand...
Many, if not most, gay individuals are not at all repulsed by the opposite gender or are incapable of having sex with them. It's simply not something they're interested in pursuing.
 
mbig said:
Not so.
That's not an answer to the the condition's contrariness to the evolutionary design and purpose of sex and sexual organs.
It's merely stating that it isn't restricted to humans.
Your PC is overriding your very good science. This is true of the vast majority of similarly smart people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem is the notion that our sexual organs are directly related to our sexuality. Homosexuals can still procreate - their sexuality does not inhibit this. I am a gay man and i can impregnate a woman - including a lesbian. It's evolutionary purpose, seeing as it has not been selected out in a multitude of species, could mean that it served a purpose beyond that of sexual relations.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
Consider the closest relative to humans in the animal kingdom: the Bonobo chimp. This critter will have sex with pretty much anything with a pulse. And they've still managed to survive as a species, so it doesn't appear that going beyond intra-species procreation was every an evolutionary problem.
Click to expand...
I don't see the relevance of this argument at all. The evolutionary purpose of sex (and desire for it) is reproduction. If some adolescent High-T Bonobo humps a broomstick.. so what?

DifferentDrummer said:
Many, if not most, gay individuals are not at all repulsed by the opposite gender or are incapable of having sex with them. It's simply not something they're interested in pursuing.
Click to expand...
Only proving My point.
They are not only "capable" of having sex with opposite gender, that IS evolution's purpose for !t, and the way the the great majority of All animal species practice it. Necessarily practice it in fact, for the very survival of that species.

The only debate here is what terms we use for behavior that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's obvious intended purpose/design of the genders' respective parts.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I don't see the relevance of this argument at all. The evolutionary purpose of sex (and desire for it) is reproduction. If some adolescent High-T Bonobo humps a broomstick.. so what?
Click to expand...
The greatest relevance is that nature doesn't seem to have had any need to restrict our sex drive for procreation only.

Only proving My point.
They are not only "capable" of having sex with opposite gender, that IS evolution's purpose for !t, and the way the the great majority of All animal species practice it. Necessarily practice it in fact, for the very survival of that species.

The only debate here is what terms we use for behavior that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's obvious intended purpose/design of the genders' respective parts.
Click to expand...
Okay, so, if a hetero couple decides that they don't have the resources to support any (more) children, are they then behaving in a way that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's intended purpose by trying not to procreate?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The greatest relevance is that nature doesn't seem to have had any need to restrict our sex drive for procreation only.
Click to expand...
We of course "don't have to".. of course without it, no More us. Funny about evolution.
It gives us 'Natural' desires.

DiffrentDrummer said:
Okay, so, if a hetero couple decides that they don't have the resources to support any (more) children, are they then behaving in a way that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's intended purpose by trying not to procreate?[/b]
Click to expand...
I would refer you to ChrisL's post #386:

"Yes, well you may have sex because it feels good, but mother nature has her own reasons for sex feeling good. I believe it is designed to feel good so that you will want to do it. Of course, because we are intelligent creatures, we are aware that sex leads to babies, so we use precautions. It's not like it's something you would be aware of anyways. MOST men are attracted to beautiful healthy-looking and young women. There are reasons for this."​

And your replies are Tiresome PC, NOT addressing evolution or the respective genders obviously reciprocal organs and Millions of years of evolution and procreation.
No one says homosexuality doesn't exist/isn't possible/or is immoral, it's just Contrary to their genders' parts/evolution.
To this you have No reply- of course...except, like the debater before you, this behavior also exists in other animals.

So unless there's something meatier forthcoming..
 
Last edited:
As others have pointed out, it all depends on how you want to define the terms. May as well be asking "which definition of 'normal' do you want to use here?"

In the strictest sense of the word, homosexuality is not the norm, so it is not normal. There can be no denying that "heterosexual sex has been the norm among humans throughout their existence."

If by normal and natural we simply mean that it occurs in nature, then I think we can all agree that it's not some form of supernatural phenomenon.
 
Taylor said:
As others have pointed out, it all depends on how you want to define the terms. May as well be asking "which definition of 'normal' do you want to use here?"
Click to expand...

The issue with definitions is a big part of the purpose of the thread. The lack of definition provided was very intentional.

In the strictest sense of the word, homosexuality is not the norm, so it is not normal. There can be no denying that "heterosexual sex has been the norm among humans throughout their existence."
Click to expand...

I am not asking about homosexual sex, but homosexuality. The state of being instead of the action.

If by normal and natural we simply mean that it occurs in nature, then I think we can all agree that it's not some form of supernatural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I do not follow your point here.
 
Redress said:
I am not asking about homosexual sex, but homosexuality. The state of being instead of the action.
Click to expand...
The "state of being" as you call it didn't come into existence until very recently [at least in western culture], so I would say it is more cultural than natural.

I do not follow your point here.
Click to expand...
There are people who claim that homosexuality is "natural" simply because it occurs in nature. If we wish to use that definition of the term, then one could argue that pretty much anything and everything is "natural" - the term becomes somewhat meaningless.

Of course that only applies to homosexual sex. Animals don't have a homosexual "state of being."
 
Jerry said:
That's right, so define your terms and state your position.
Click to expand...
I don't see there being one objectively "correct" use of terms - I guess that's my position. I listed two above; both of which I think are correct but not very useful in terms of stimulating debate.
 
chromium said:
No kidding. I've been trying to explain to Gath that gays can reproduce for this reason (well, to have kids) for a long time and just doesn't seem to believe it.

I also find it bemusing how they ignore that jerking off feels good for the same exact reason sex does, and it in fact lowers the sex drive temporarily...so it acts counter to this "instinct" to reproduce. How come we're built so that our hands can reach down there so readily if orgasm is solely to encourage reproduction? How come anal sex feels good for that matter? They can't account for non-reproductive orgasm at all.
Click to expand...

I hear yah and I have no idea what the disconnect is in accepting this... *shrugs*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom