• 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
That's fine you don't have to respond, but I will point out that I never claimed that homosexuality is normal. So your whole contention with my argument was built upon your misunderstanding.
You're LYING again.
The whole purpose of your posting of Wiki's 'animal homosexuality' page was to show it's commonness/normality across the animal kingdom. A long listing of such.
and additionally/Consistently/Despicably you left off the Opening parts that explain it really isn't.

Your posts are not only poorly conceived, they are intentionally Deceptive and beneath contempt/debate.
 
You're LYING again.
The whole purpose of your posting of Wiki's 'animal homosexuality' page was to show it's commonness/normality across the animal kingdom. A long listing of such.
and additionally/Consistently/Despicably you left off the Opening parts that explain it really isn't.

Your posts are not only poorly conceived, they are intentionally Deceptive and beneath contempt/debate.

Uh, no it wasn't it was in response to Taylor who said animals do not form homosexual relationships. Try again buddy.
 
Uh, no it wasn't it was in response to Taylor who said animals do not form homosexual relationships. Try again buddy.
And 'Homosexual' behavior in animals, isn't mainly about 'relationships', UNLIKE Humans, it's part (generally short) of a Repertoire of behavior that is Mainly Heterosexual.
It is Not analogous to the term as applied to humans.
Still wrong.
See the Wiki link you Cherry-picked/I contexted.

Your posting is inaccurate and Grossly Dishonest. Short-quoting me in almost every instance and Wiki as well.
 
Last edited:
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.

It consistently occurs in vacuo regardless of sociocultural or ethnic input, all over the planet and in hundreds of other species. By those criteria, I would say it is natural and normal.

Human moral codes are irrelevant to the objectivity of nature. Most of our human systems and laws are unnatural and abnormal when compared to the natural framework that maintains balance of life on the planet. Just because we imagine something to be a certain way, does not make it so.

Likewise, I find it unfortunate that many heterosexual people label their various lifestyles as "natural" merely because body parts happen to fit together and perform a reproductive function, irregardless of higher consciousness values and loving/spiritual connections between partners, as though we are nothing more than flesh robots.
 
I would imagine that there is but I would seriously doubt that there is any evidence of this because, as it was seriously looked down upon by society and the church that no records would have been kept.
That period in history is appropriately referred to as the "dark ages" - most of our history and philosophy comes from the periods before and after where "society and the church" did not stifle recordkeeping, and there is in fact much that relates to sexuality.

I bet my life that there were homosexuals having secret relationships though and that, if they knew what the concept was, would have identified themselves as Homosexuals. You can't prove you are right and nobody can prove you wrong but that doesn't make your argument valid in the slightest either. As there are homosexuals now that claim that this was a natural thing for them and that they lived with women thinking it was right until they accepted their true self, always knew they were homosexual, etc. I would go with that as the default for human history.
In many cultures, there was no need for "secret relationships" because homosexual sex was accepted. They would not have understood your view of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy - conservative even by today's standards. In those cultures, a person may have engaged in mostly same-sex relations in their younger years, and mostly heterosexual relations for the bulk of their life, and never considered the need to conform to some culturally- fabricated label.
 
And 'Homosexual' behavior in animals, isn't mainly about 'relationships'
, UNLIKE Humans, it's part (generally short) of a Continuum of behavior that is Mainly Heterosexual.
Except there are such thing as animals who have an exclusive attraction to their own sex and who create exclusively homosexual coupling. This is confirmed not only by my quote in which the documented animals not only had sex with their own gender but stayed paired for years on after. But then there is also the evidence compounded by your own quote that you keep trying to dismiss, it was the part that you did not bother to bold.
but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.
ExIt is overwhelmingly NOT analogous to the term as applied to humans.
Overwhelming - is not the same as "Absolutely not analogous" which means, as shown, that it can be interpreted as such.
Still wrong.
lol. Not at all.
 
That period in history is appropriately referred to as the "dark ages" - most of our history and philosophy comes from the periods before and after where "society and the church" did not stifle recordkeeping, and there is in fact much that relates to sexuality.


In many cultures, there was no need for "secret relationships" because homosexual sex was accepted. They would not have understood your view of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy - conservative even by today's standards. In those cultures, a person may have engaged in mostly same-sex relations in their younger years, and mostly heterosexual relations for the bulk of their life, and never considered the need to conform to some culturally- fabricated label.

Well, wasn't it Sapphos (sp.?) from the island of Lesbos (Lesbians), the foundation of Western Culture, where same sex relationships became famous? Seems it has been around for a long time, contrary to your claim.
 
Except there are such thing as animals who have an exclusive attraction to their own sex and who create exclusively homosexual coupling. This is confirmed not only by my quote in which the documented animals not only had sex with their own gender but stayed paired for years on after. And then that evidence is compounded by your own quote that you keep trying to dismiss, it was the part that you did not bother to bold.

Overwhelming - is not the same as "Absolutely not analogous" which means, as shown, that it can be interpreted as such.

lol. Not at all.
That's correct.
I said "overwhelmingly" instead of "absolutely" so some High School Strawman debater couldN'T use the old "all" on me.
I Never claimed "all", of course/Duh.
I mean really.

So I could make a 99%+ TRUE generalization without Being refuted with rare EXCEPTION/S.
PREcisely why I used that language.
That WAS Wiki's actual take.
So you try the strawman anyway!
YOUR Wiki Excerpt DISHONESTLY made 'Overwhelmingly Rare' look common/normal.

That's Right, YOU LOSE, because I didn't use "all" or "100%".
Because "Overwhelmingly" is plenty good enough to show something Isn't "normal", and was what Wiki Actually said about animal 'homosexuality'.
 
Last edited:
Well, wasn't it Sapphos (sp.?) from the island of Lesbos (Lesbians), the foundation of Western Culture, where same sex relationships became famous? Seems it has been around for a long time, contrary to your claim.
Don't know where you got the idea that I've claimed that same sex relationships are something new.
 
That's correct.
I said "overwhelmingly" instead of "absolutely" so some High School Strawman debater couldN'T use the old "all" on me.

So I could make a 99%+ TRUE generalization without Being refuted with the EXCEPTIONS you are using.

PREcisely why I used that language!


That's Right, YOU LOSE, because I didn't use "all" or "100%".
Because "Overwelmingly" is plenty good enough to show "abnormal"

Why do you think I care if it is "abnormal"? I already explained to you that I never argued that it was normal. You silly goose.

You claimed you trumped me on an argument I never offered in the first place. Both my and your quote confirm that exclusive homosexual behavior & pairings do exist in the animal kingdom outside of humans. Which for me and taylor proves that it does happen, contrary to her claim that it does not.

You came in like a bat out of hell arguing a position I do not hold. But hey if makes you feel better. Then yes you are right it is abnormal.
 
Why do you think I care if it is "abnormal"? I already explained to you that I never argued that it was normal. You silly goose.

You claimed you trumped me on an argument I never offered in the first place. Both my and your quote confirm that exclusive homosexual behavior & pairings do exist in the animal kingdom outside of humans. Which for me and taylor proves that it does happen, contrary to her claim that it does not.

You came in like a bat out of hell arguing a position I do not hold. But hey if makes you feel better. Then yes you are right it is abnormal.
So You're dropping my ACCURATE "Overwhelmingly".
And aren't going to try and 'strawman' me with [Duh] "all"/"absolutely" any more.

Dropping that You sought to DISHONESTLY mischaracterize the Wiki entry which I Correctly characterized.
You put up a laundry list of so-called animal 'homosexual' behavior to show it was common/normal and Just Now ALSO Dropped the world 'relationships' from the behavior, after I elaborated it was Overwhelmingly just pat of the animal's repertoire, NOT a long-lasting preference as in Humans.

Your are impossible to debate because your posts are ALL Dishonest Deflections.
You get Nailed on every Contention and then its Drop what I said. At least now I've forced you to quote my whole posts even if you still can't address them, nor own up what yo said in your own last posts.

ALL your posts re deflections, short-quotes, and the last few.. back-tracking.


EDIT:
Below is just More Lies.
This poster Dishonestly Short-quoted Wiki to make animal 'homosexuality' look common/normal (and ergo human too)
Then, even worse, Dishonestly Short-quoted My excerpt of the Same Wiki L!nk explaining why His 'homosexual animal' list was "irrelevant" and NOT analogous.

Last-word away. It was over more than a page ago. (top of last page) Bye
 
Last edited:
So You're dropping my ACCURATE "Overwhelmingly".
And aren't going to try and 'strawman' man me with [Duh] "all"/"absolutely" any more.

Dropping that You sought to DISHONESTLY mischaracterize the Wiki entry which I Correctly characterized.
You put up a laundry list of so-called animal 'homosexual' behavior to show it was common/normal and Just Now ALSO Dropped the world 'relationships' from the behavior, after I elaborate it was Overwhelmingly just pat of the animal's repertoire, NOT a ling-lasting preference as in Humans.

Your are impossible to debate because your post are ALL Dishonest Deflections.
You get Nailed on every Contention and then its Drop what I said. At least now I've forced you to quote m whole posts even if yur can't address them.

ALL your posts re deflections, short-quotes, and the last few.. back-tracking.

I didn't mischaracterize, lie, distort, or backtrack anything. lmao.

Taylor claimed that the extent of homosexuality among animals is sex. I provided relevant examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom that went beyond sex. That was all that I needed to make my point. Everything you are arguing is built off of your misunderstanding of my position. I wasn't trying to prove the normality of homosexual behavior among animals. I was proving that it existed. Period.

And yes absolutely and overwhelmingly mean two separate things. Glad we could settle that.

Below is just More Lies.

Lol, um no. It's not a lie.
mbig mischaracterized my argument, actually. I simply was responding to the user Taylor who made the claim that homosexuality among animals exists only in the form of intercourse, as in they don't do anything other than that to characterize them as homosexual. In response I provided documented examples of Elephants, Penguins, Vultures, and monkeys that not only have sex with each other but also form "relationships" or pairings. Some staying together for Years on after. In which two males/females will stay paired and even raise an offspring together.

For those actually interested in the actual context of my post and not Mbigs hyperbolic melt downs - you can look here.


Yes actually some of them do.
 
Last edited:
Don't know where you got the idea that I've claimed that same sex relationships are something new.

You are claiming that identifying as a homosexual is something new... it isn't. The very term Lesbian comes from the Greeks. Lesbians are female homosexuals. Females that identify as homosexuals.
 
Why do you think I care if it is "abnormal"? I already explained to you that I never argued that it was normal. You silly goose.

You claimed you trumped me on an argument I never offered in the first place. Both my and your quote confirm that exclusive homosexual behavior & pairings do exist in the animal kingdom outside of humans. Which for me and taylor proves that it does happen, contrary to her claim that it does not.

You came in like a bat out of hell arguing a position I do Not hold. But hey if makes you feel better.
Then yes you are right it is abnormal.
For the record:

Perhaps you don't realize your votes in the poll are Visible. (like the rest of the Wiki link)
You voted Both "normal" and "natural".

Ooops
 
For the record:

Perhaps you don't realize your votes in the poll are Visible. (like the rest of the Wiki link)
You voted Both "normal" and "natural".

Ooops

And what's your point? I never argued in this thread that homosexuality is prevalent enough in nature to be considered normal. which is exactly what you kept insisting that I did do.

I voted it is normal because I am homosexual and it is normal for me and the community I live in.
 
Last edited:
Just like any birth defect... it's technically natural and technically normal.
like Hypospaidias

but I don't think if you make a clone of a homosexual... the clone will also be homosexual. Most research points to it being a sort of development issue in the womb which chances can be increased by genes and the womb environment.
 
I hear yah and I have no idea what the disconnect is in accepting this... *shrugs*

"family values" / religious right is my guess

but at least they can accept homosexuality is no choice, if a "defect" still...progress!
 
but I don't think if you make a clone of a homosexual... the clone will also be homosexual. Most research points to it being a sort of development issue in the womb which chances can be increased by genes and the womb environment.

I think twin studies can help explain this. Sharing genes makes it more likely is all. Likewise, i'd think a clone of a hetero could turn out homo, if the womb environment triggered that.
 
That's correct.
I said "overwhelmingly" instead of "absolutely" so some High School Strawman debater couldN'T use the old "all" on me.
I Never claimed "all", of course/Duh.
I mean really.

So I could make a 99%+ TRUE generalization without Being refuted with rare EXCEPTION/S.
PREcisely why I used that language.
That WAS Wiki's actual take.
So you try the strawman anyway!
YOUR Wiki Excerpt DISHONESTLY made 'Overwhelmingly Rare' look common/normal.

That's Right, YOU LOSE, because I didn't use "all" or "100%".
Because "Overwhelmingly" is plenty good enough to show something Isn't "normal", and was what Wiki Actually said about animal 'homosexuality'.

But what's your point even? It's not that common in humans either. The reason it's pointed out it exists in nature is to explain why it's *natural*. I don't even know the point in this arguing over "evolutionary purpose," except to claim gay as inferior or wrong or something.

The % of animals that stick with homosexual behavior only doesn't really matter, since many gay humans don't either (and vice versa). Why might it be lower % tho? I'm guessing it's just that, unlike animals for the most part, we have means to communicate sexuality and seek companions. I would think a gay animal would fear making a move and getting a beatdown for it and just resort to hetero sex at times for lack of other options (like reverse of prison).
 
latest USA poll shows only 2.3% of the pop. is gay.

I think that makes it by DEFINITION, Abnormal(def.deviating from what is normal or usual)

That's science talk folks, and none of you ever question the mighty SCIENCE!!!!

LOL you think an anonymous poll is scientific? Both the definition and criteria for determining that the results fit that definition have to fit a scientific standard. Anyway like i said, obviously less than half the population is gay. Same with blue eyes, left handed, male, blind, allegies, so on. Someone should make a thread referencing a poll that "proves" most people are not born blind and you can post what a huge deal that is and how abnormal the blind are. Oh, but that would be exceedingly cruel in your view i bet.
 
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.

Natural:
"existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." - obvious, and that's why it's pointed out that it occurs in nature

"of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something." - it is natural for homosexuals

Sex or sex organs serve multiple purposes. If you don't believe this, go your whole life without jerking off. And once again, gays can reproduce. My gay uncle has 3 kids and is hardly alone in that. Just like heteros can go without reproducing. How unnatural and contrary to evolution they must be huh.
 
Precisely.

It's frankly still motivated primarily by the intrinsic need to pass on one's genes even today. Pleasure is simply the incentive.

You see, I do understand.

First of all, this is an entirely different statement then you've made previously. You seem to be shifting your words to suit the moment and it makes you appear inconsistent to me.

Also, I thought you were a Catholic and believed there is some divine plan behind and purpose for everything. How does your seeming acceptance of evolution and use of it to defend your position fit into that?

Lastly, we are more highly evolved creatures today then we were at (assuming you're right) whatever primitive level of our evolution we may have been at when we were driven purely by instinct. As higher functioning animals we have the capacity to override our instincts (ie: dieting, suicide) So the argument that at some point some kind of base instinct was driving our sexual behavior and there was no pleasure present seems irrelevant when arguing why more evolved humans seek it out today
 
You are claiming that identifying as a homosexual is something new... it isn't. The very term Lesbian comes from the Greeks. Lesbians are female homosexuals. Females that identify as homosexuals.
No. The term "lesbian" didn't refer to female homosexuals until about 100 years ago, the current connotation has nothing to do with how ancient Greeks conceptualized sexual relations.
 
You see, I do understand.

First of all, this is an entirely different statement then you've made previously. You seem to be shifting your words to suit the moment and it makes you appear inconsistent to me.

Also, I thought you were a Catholic and believed there is some divine plan behind and purpose for everything. How does your seeming acceptance of evolution and use of it to defend your position fit into that?

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about nature's order as being a result of "God's will" or simple chance as ordained by practical feasibility. It is ultimately the same thing.

Assuming that God actually exists in the first place, and was the creator, and therefore designer, of the physical universe, it logically follows that nothing in that universe would have occurred without his knowledge or foresight. In short, if the world works a certain way, it is only because he made it that way in the first place.

Lastly, we are more highly evolved creatures today then we were at (assuming you're right) whatever primitive level of our evolution we may have been at when we were driven purely by instinct. As higher functioning animals we have the capacity to override our instincts (ie: dieting, suicide) So the argument that at some point some kind of base instinct was driving our sexual behavior and there was no pleasure present seems irrelevant when arguing why more evolved humans seek it out today

Okay, but what does that change?

The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people don't really think about why they want sex one way or the other. They seek it out more or less innately.

They do so, because they are being driven primarily by instinct and biological programming which is almost completely beyond their control.

A person can think whatever pretty thoughts they want. At the end of the day, however, they are still ultimately beholden to their physical body, their physical mind, and all the intrinsic wants, needs, and limitations that come along with them.

In this case, it simply happens to be an objectively observable fact that the primary reason why the human body and human instinct so strongly desire sexual activity in the first place, is because the act serves a reproductive function which ensures the survival of the species as a whole, and of an individual's own genetic lineage in particular. Sexuality wouldn't exist at all without that greater purpose. It would simply be a waste of time, energy, and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Frankly, that's exactly what "recreational" sex is today when one removes the reproductive element as well.

I mean... Really, do you not see the intrinsic irony of suggesting that human beings are "evolved" enough to overcome their animal instincts, while, at the same time, lauding the virtues of messily smooshing up against one another for basically no other reason than instinctual drive and the natural chemical "high" that goes along with it?

You are advocating a lot of things here. However, I wouldn't say that dignified and restrained "conquest of nature" is really one of them. :lol:
 
Last edited:
"family values" / religious right is my guess

but at least they can accept homosexuality is no choice, if a "defect" still...progress!

finally!
 
Back
Top Bottom