• 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
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.

Did I say that the term was used since the times of ancient Greece or did I simply say that is where the term derived from?

... but I can see that you are not open to honest debate, so...
 
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 don't think I ever denied this.

I simply said that it was kind of a needlessly complicated way of doing things when a person could simply want to have reproductive sex with members of the opposite sex in the first place as a matter of instinct.

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.

Masturbation serves other purposes. So long as it isn't taken to extremes, it can help to keep to reproductive system properly regulated and in good working order.

Frankly, even beyond that, no one denied that it wasn't possible for instincts to be twisted in ways that go beyond their evolutionary purpose. We see the same thing all the time with people who suffer from obesity and other forms of addiction.

It's simply a flaw intrinsic to our biology.
 
Right, but the only standards by which it is immoral is via religious ones which are a pretty ridiculous standard to go by (e.g it is a sin to eat shellfish).

Yep, that and the ever-popular "it's a sin to use birth control" to prevent getting stuck with an unwanted pregnancy. Which is why the conservative anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much; it's sex WITHOUT the unwanted burden of reproduction.
 
Alright. I was just pointing out that recognising that homosexuality is 'normal' or 'natural' is not a step towards accepting it, but even a step back from that, considering it is 'normal' in many cultures we otherwise find repugnant morally, and natural only in that it is practiced in the wild. It is a usage of body parts in a way that nature did not intend, however, and it violates the biological function of intercourse, namely to reproduce.

Whether to reproduce or not isn't for YOU to decide. It's for EACH person, woman or man, gay or straight, to decide that for herself or himself. Personally, I chose long ago NEVER to reproduce, but I have no intention of denying myself sex for the rest of my life because of it. I chose long ago never to marry either.

Marriage and parenthood are OPTIONS, not obligations, which means anyone can opt out of one or both.
 
Gay sex is unnatural and immoral.

Let me guess why you believe such nonsense; because it doesn't lead to the unwanted burden of reproduction. Here's a news flash for you, there are many straight folks, myself included, who don't ever intend to reproduce. Sex without reproduction is fine by me. :)
 
Let me guess why you believe such nonsense; because it doesn't lead to the unwanted burden of reproduction. Here's a news flash for you, there are many straight folks, myself included, who don't ever intend to reproduce. Sex without reproduction is fine by me. :)

That's only part of it. Gay sex is a sin and a perversion according to the Word of God.
 
That's only part of it. Gay sex is a sin and a perversion according to the Word of God.

Correction. Your interpretation of a particular translation of an edited assortment of writings that you take on faith are based on the word of God.
 
Which would, of course, make left-handed people abnormal. Most people don't think of abnormality as simply falling out of the statistical average, but as something that is actually wrong with the individual. You could also use it, under the same terms, to refer to black people as abnormal. That's why I'd hesitate to use the term "normal" to refer to something that is perfectly fine, even if it only applies to a minority.

as a left handed person, I have no problem with it being labelled abnormal. It certainly seems so to me. It can't be explained genetically and it happens in a rather small percentage of the population.
 
That's only part of it. Gay sex is a sin and a perversion according to the Word of God.

Well then, don't have it yourself. However, it doesn't matter what other people do. I don't subscribe to your sky god, therefore YOUR interpretation and YOUR book mean NOTHING to me. Where in your book does it say to butt into people's lives and tell them what to do?
 
Well then, don't have it yourself. However, it doesn't matter what other people do. I don't subscribe to your sky god, therefore YOUR interpretation and YOUR book mean NOTHING to me. Where in your book does it say to butt into people's lives and tell them what to do?

Why are you butting into mine? I didn't ask for your nonsense.
 
Why are you butting into mine? I didn't ask for your nonsense.

LOL YOU were the one that posted your nonsense on a PUBLIC board. Don't like it, don't post here then.
 
............

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.
Doesn't this only serve to undermine your whole argument?

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.
You've never made the conscious choice to NOT have sex and then acted on that?

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.
It is not "objectively observable". You're discussing motivation and intent how is that objectively observable? It would be objectively observable it you punched someone in the nose or crashed your car but why you did either of those is not objectively observable.

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.
This is one of the top ten most ridiculous things you've ever said. Lot's of things human beings do exist without a higher purpose. I thought of about 20 sarcastic things I could say in response to the "was of time...." thing but let's just say we disagree and the majority of the population would disagree also.

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?
Yes, I do. If you choose when you do and when you don't you are controlling the impulse.

............. I wouldn't say that dignified and restrained "conquest of nature" is really one of them. :lol:
it's a simple issue of self control which,as I recall, you advocate on a regular basis
 
That's only part of it. Gay sex is a sin and a perversion according to the Word of God.

My God put gay people on the earth as part of his plan - a natural overpopulation control. In his wisdom, he left them with alternative urges and desires for intimacy, a wonderful part of the human experience.
 
Could you please define "normal". Maybe I can help. Does "normal" mean you just go along to get along? Does "normal" mean you just try to act like most people around you? If these things are true, I'd like to propose that "normal" actually means "boring."
 
...which is why you wouldn't call left-handed people "abnormal" but uncommon, atypical, or unrepresentative of the population.

"Abnormal" is not the opposite of "normal" because as you say, it connotes something undesirable.

Which is fine and why I said it depends on how you define your terms. There are an awful lot of people who would define homosexuality as abnormal because of it's negative connotation.
 
Doesn't this only serve to undermine your whole argument?

How so?

The basic gist of my argument here is that things work the way they do for a reason. That reason simply happens to be the fact that they result in certain beneficial outcomes under natural circumstances (in this case, the continuation and survival of the species) which helped our ancestors to gain an edge over their competition.

If there is, in fact, a God, would it not have been he who was ultimately responsible for setting things in this order in the first place?

You've never made the conscious choice to NOT have sex and then acted on that?

Sure. I've made the conscious choice not to eat, drink, sleep, or void my bowels - even when I've really wanted to - as well.

However, that doesn't change the reason why the instinctual compulsion to do all of these things exists in the first place.

It is not "objectively observable". You're discussing motivation and intent how is that objectively observable? It would be objectively observable it you punched someone in the nose or crashed your car but why you did either of those is not objectively observable.

Just about every higher organism on this planet has sex. A great many do so purely for procreation. Only a few have pleasure tacked onto the side as an extra incentive.

Hell! A few even have pain. Have you ever seen cats go at it, for example?

The feline penis is covered in sharp barbs and spikes. Females only barely tolerate the process out of instinct and hormonal drive alone.

Ducks, for their own immensely disturbing part, reproduce almost exclusively through violent rape.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things what superficial factors might be at play. The undeniable reality of the situation is that the common element which runs through all sexual behavior, for all species, is reproduction.

Pleasure, pain, power, social bonds, and every other extraneous feature of sexual behavior which has been brought up in this thread are ultimately only secondary adaptations, which were added on to that process at some later point in evolutionary development.

Without the reproductive element, sex simply wouldn't exist. That's really all there is to it.

This is one of the top ten most ridiculous things you've ever said. Lot's of things human beings do exist without a higher purpose. I thought of about 20 sarcastic things I could say in response to the "waste of time...." thing but let's just say we disagree and the majority of the population would disagree also.

No one said that nature's mechanisms could not sometimes be confused, or perverted against their normal purpose.

Our bodies chemically "reward" us for taking certain actions which are beneficial to our survival and the survival of the species as a whole. That much is undeniable. Unfortunately, however, it simply happens to be the case that sometimes even beneficial actions can lend themselves to over-indulgence (one must remember that the world in which our instincts evolved tended to have far more scarce resources than are available today, after all), or that the "chemical reward" in question can be attained by other, unnatural, means.

This is how we wind up with problems like sex addiction, obesity, alcoholism, and other forms of substance abuse. People either gorge themselves on something their body desires to the point where it actually becomes a liability, or they find a means to trick their body into thinking it has been "satisfied" in some fashion using artificial means, when it really has not, and become hooked on that instead.

As I said to Chromium earlier, this state of affairs is honestly neither here nor there as far as what we are discussing is concerned. It is simply one of the many downfalls of our imperfect biological nature.

Just because we can do something that is effectively pointless, doesn't mean that we should.

Yes, I do. If you choose when you do and when you don't you are controlling the impulse.

it's a simple issue of self control which,as I recall, you advocate on a regular basis

What you're arguing for here really isn't "self-control," however. You're basically arguing for exactly what I described above.

Divorced from its natural purpose, sex is really little more than another drug like any other.

That is pretty much exactly how the social Left wants to treat it.
 
Last edited:
That's only part of it. Gay sex is a sin and a perversion according to the Word of God.

:roll: What nonsense. Thankfully, I don't subscribe to such ridiculous, backward beliefs. Homosexuality is one form of sex, that's it.
 
Nope, that's what the Word says.

So? As far as I'M concerned, "the word" is complete nonsense. Therefore, I can -- and DO -- dismiss it as such.
 
Why are you butting into mine? I didn't ask for your nonsense.

Uh, dude, you are posting on a PUBLIC message board. That means anyone can post whatever they want, including views YOU don't like. Did you really not know this? :roll:
 
I swear, when I read threads like this...God gets transformed into a micromanager.:(

I always believed God was more of a big picture guy. :roll:
 
Nope, that's what the Word says.

Until you learn some humility, nobody is going to take you seriously and you will continue to waste your time. But whatever, it is your life kiddo.
 
Uh, dude, you are posting on a PUBLIC message board. That means anyone can post whatever they want, including views YOU don't like. Did you really not know this? :roll:

Hey DUDE - here's what I was responding to:
Originally Posted by TheNextEra: Where in your book does it say to butt into people's lives and tell them what to do?

Guess it's ok for you guys to tell us, in so many words, to butt out, but not the reverse.

So like you said, it's a public forum. To which I repeat:

Gay sex is a sin and a perversion. Gays and all other sinners need to repent (Luke 13:3) or they're eternally screwed.
 
Until you learn some humility, nobody is going to take you seriously and you will continue to waste your time. But whatever, it is your life kiddo.

That's rich, coming from the pro-gay pride parade community.
 
Back
Top Bottom