• 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
I am not pro gay pride. I am pro love. And there ain't no love or concern coming from you.

Which is profoundly more Jesus-y than non-deities making judgments and damning people to hell.
 
The difference being? On any practical basis, they are the same thing.

No they are not the same. They are polar opposites. I pursue the consumption of food because it relieves the pains of hunger not because I am driven instinctively to survive. The outcome is that I survive but it does not motivate my actions, the outcome is a consequential byproduct of my pursuit to the relief from the pains of hunger but it does not consciously drive my pursuit of food. I can however as a sentient being override my impulse and select my own desired outcome.

Again your perspective that sexual activity is ultimately motivated by some primitive instinct to procreate does not fit with why people pursue it today; in there currently evolved state of being. You are saying that sex exists for the sole purpose or procreation and that people seek it out based on that instinctive drive therefore any sexual act that is not rooted in this outcome and by your definition correct instinct of procreation is wrong but that does not fit with the reality of why today's humans pursue sexual interaction

I say that if that instinct exists on some subconscious level it is irrelevant to what motivates or drives people to seek out sexual pleasure today.
 
No they are not the same. They are polar opposites. I pursue the consumption of food because it relieves the pains of hunger not because I am driven instinctively to survive. The outcome is that I survive but it does not motivate my actions, the outcome is a consequential byproduct of my pursuit to the relief from the pains of hunger but it does not consciously drive my pursuit of food. I can however as a sentient being override my impulse and select my own desired outcome.

Do you imagine that the hunger pains to which you refer would exist at all if your body did not require sustenance to survive in the first place?

Given that fact, would you imagine that anything where the instinctual drive to "hunger" is concerned ultimately matters beyond the basic reality of the condition's outcome?

I'm sorry, but, regardless of how you try to twist things here, there is really no way around intrinsic biology. "Wants" do not simply materialize out of the cosmic aether unbeckoned. They are generally driven by instinct, which is, in turn, overwhelmingly correlated with basic biological necessity.

The influence of that instinct can be either conscious and quite blatant, or subconscious, and rather subtle. However, there can be absolutely no doubt that our actions and desires are, in fact, influenced and driven by instinct nonetheless.

That influence exists for a reason. Our species quite literally would not be here without it.

Again your perspective that sexual activity is ultimately motivated by some primitive instinct to procreate does not fit with why people pursue it today; in there currently evolved state of being. You are saying that sex exists for the sole purpose or procreation and that people seek it out based on that instinctive drive therefore any sexual act that is not rooted in this outcome and by your definition correct instinct of procreation is wrong but that does not fit with the reality of why today's humans pursue sexual interaction

I say that if that instinct exists on some subconscious level it is irrelevant to what motivates or drives people to seek out sexual pleasure today.

I take the opposite view. At the end of the day, the reasons why people may think they are pursuing sexual activity are ultimately irrelevant.

The simple fact of the matter is that the instincts which compel human beings to indulge their sexuality in the first place only exist for one reason; procreation. They originated from that common purpose, and still work towards it even today.

Granted, some people obviously find that biological reality to be inconvenient. In that vein, they have developed technological methods of circumventing the reproductive outcomes in which sexual activity usually results, while retaining the chemical "rewards" that come along with the process.

To the people who make use of such technologies, I say... "Meh." Like any other vice, I suppose it's fine in moderation, so long as one approaches it with the proper attitude. :shrug:

However, either way regardless, the fact still stands that, just because modern technology allows sexual activity to be treated as nothing more than a base expression of pointless hedonistic excess, doesn't mean that it actually is. The purpose of the act remains the same as it ever was.

It always will remain as such, regardless of whether we choose to openly acknowledge it or not.
 
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.

Almost everyone is born with the genitalia of one gender or the other...but very rarely, one is born with genitalia of both genders. That this happens very rarely makes no difference, for all that is required is for it to happen once.

Almost everyone is born with no tail...but there are extremely rare cases of babies born with tails. The fact that it is so incredibly rare makes no difference, for all that is required is for it to happen once.

Almost everyone is born with the proper set of chromosomes for their particular gender, but in rare cases some are born with the set of chromosomes that are for the gender opposite of the gender they are born with. This is rare...but the rarity doesn't matter...all that is required is for it to happen once.

On top of all that, if anyone has ever personally known for years someone who was truly homosexual - not the (apparently more common) bisexual, but the true homosexual - then that someone would know that homosexuality is not a choice - no force in the world could get that homosexual truly excited about the opposite sex.

Therefore homosexuality is normal and natural.
 
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.

You can repeat this NONSENSE all you want. It's still nonsense all the same. IMO the only reason why anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much is because it's sex without the unwanted burden of reproduction. It isn't a "sin" any more than contraception, no matter what the extremists keep insisting.
 
I am not pro gay pride. I am pro love. And there ain't no love or concern coming from you.

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity." - I Corinthians 13

and, from Romans 13:

"Love does a neighbor no harm" (like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and / or eternal consequences).
 
You can repeat this NONSENSE all you want. It's still nonsense all the same. IMO the only reason why anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much is because it's sex without the unwanted burden of reproduction. It isn't a "sin" any more than contraception, no matter what the extremists keep insisting.

Absolute nonsense.
 
"Love does not rejoice in iniquity." - I Corinthians 13

and, from Romans 13:

"Love does a neighbor no harm" (like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and / or eternal consequences).

Love thy neighbor as thy loves thyself. (Do not be a self righteous, condescending Bible thumper. Treat your fellow human beings with respect and decency.)
 
Homosexuality is not normal in the sense of being common because only a minority of people are attracted to the same sex. However, it is natural as it occurs in nature, and is found in many different species, humans included.
 
The simple fact of the matter is that the instincts which compel human beings to indulge their sexuality in the first place only exist for one reason; procreation. They originated from that common purpose, and still work towards it even today.

Today, that simple fact can actually be proved incorrect, for no other reason than that there are several measurable health benefits to sexual activity that have nothing to do with procreation.

For example, men who ejaculate every day have much lower chances of developing urinary tract infections than those who do so only rarely.

So you can make a case for procreation being the most important reason for the existence of sexual activity, but that's about as far as you can go.
 
Love thy neighbor as thy loves thyself. (Do not be a self righteous, condescending Bible thumper. Treat your fellow human beings with respect and decency.)

Hey - love speaks the truth about gay sex debauchery. And without repentance and salvation in Christ you'll wind up in a place where there is no love.
 
I say normal and I dare say natural as well, though clearly not socially acceptable. Why? Because it's been going on since Biblical times. So, whether natural occurring or a lifestyle choice it's a behavior that clearly didn't just start during the last two presidential cycles. I mean, there's long been questions whether Abraham Lincoln was gay.

Just saying...the debate continues...
 
Today, that simple fact can actually be proved incorrect, for no other reason than that there are several measurable health benefits to sexual activity that have nothing to do with procreation.

For example, men who ejaculate every day have much lower chances of developing urinary tract infections than those who do so only rarely.

So you can make a case for procreation being the most important reason for the existence of sexual activity, but that's about as far as you can go.

The "benefits" of sex are basically the same as the benefits of exercise, laughter, or any other activity which releases large quantities of endorphins into the body while stimulating major muscle groups at the same time. They are ultimately more a testament to the intrinsic value of physical activity to the health of both the mind and body than anything else.

I also don't doubt that, pursued on at least a semi-regular basis, sexual release can have certain benefits where "maintaining" the health and good function of our reproductive systems and other related organs are concerned. That's why we masturbate.

However, it doesn't change the fact that reproduction is basically the only reason we possess those organs in the first place.
 
Homosexuality is as normal/natural as being right of left handed. It is something you are by nature, not something you learn of are "lured" into. You are either gay or you are not. Being given a "manly" education will never change the sexual preference of any child.

The same goes for prayer, religious/psychological conversion therapy, etc. etc. etc. that the anti-gay are using to "cure" the gayness of people. You can maybe change behavior choices but that is only making someone live against their nature, making them neither happy or "straight". Usually it will just lead to suffering from both them and their families.
 
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.

We were discussing the "pointlessness" of homosexuality existing, not the behavior. For those who are homosexual, it's hardly pointless, else none would bother. I'm sure you'd mention STD risk for why it shouldn't be done. That's why precautions should be taken, but remaining single or a virgin one's whole life is out of the question for most.

That is pretty much exactly how the social Left wants to treat it.

No, a big diff between the RR and left is i *don't care* what others do. It's none of my business or concern. Irritating the way others act as if saying homosexuality is natural/normal is like demanding that only anal sex is legal or drugs are mandatory.
 
Absolute nonsense.

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. As I said previously, I think the primary reason why anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much is because it allows for having sex without the unwanted burden of reproduction, the same reason why anti-contraception extremists hate birth control and want to restrict women's access to it.

Whether anti-gay or anti-contraception, the extremists seem to have the ridiculous belief that sex is only acceptable if the unwanted burden of reproduction is attached. Thankfully, it isn't up to YOU to decide that.
 
Hey - love speaks the truth about gay sex debauchery. And without repentance and salvation in Christ you'll wind up in a place where there is no love.

Absolute NONSENSE. :roll:
 
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. As I said previously, I think the primary reason why anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much is because it allows for having sex without the unwanted burden of reproduction, the same reason why anti-contraception extremists hate birth control and want to restrict women's access to it.

Whether anti-gay or anti-contraception, the extremists seem to have the ridiculous belief that sex is only acceptable if the unwanted burden of reproduction is attached. Thankfully, it isn't up to YOU to decide that.

Nope, that's not it. It's because it's wrong - a sin, and sin- especially when it's defended and celebrated - brings the disfavor of God on men and nations.
 
Nope, that's not it. It's because it's wrong - a sin, and sin- especially when it's defended and celebrated - brings the disfavor of God on men and nations.

That is your opinion and I guess for you personally a fact. But your personal belief is just that, a believe built on the opinions of people from centuries ago and that those people thought like that is one thing, but people today should/ought to know better.

Being gay is not a sin, you can think living a gay style is sinful but the "being gay" is not sinful, it is natural for those people and normal for those people. Gays have been persecuted for centuries, even though the people who judged them are doing this against the thoughts of the man the claim to be following (Christ) who spoke of not judging others.

There are several comments about judging but I feel that most self described Christians love to judge the faults of others in a way that I do not think corresponds with the message that god is love and to 'love thigh neighbor'. Isn't the only real judge god himself? I doubt he wants his minions to do the judging and the punishing and persecuting for him.

Also, just because you have your faith does not make you god all mighty. People who are gay may not see it as a sin at all, not everybody lives according to your religion and your laws of life.

Only things that are a crime are wrong, that is a quantifiable fact. And even though you think that being gay is wrong and sinful, does not make it so for many others.

And for them celebrating? Why not, they have been hiding themselves out of fear for the persecutors, judges among men and the executioners/violence perpetrators among men for centuries and centuries. Even now the sick and twisted anti-gay forces spread their vile evil and their disgusting twisted morality, luring gay men to then be exposed online and tortured in the process, all in the name of religion. So I have no problem with them (from time to time) celebrating their "freedom".

And anti-gay sentiments and opinions is exactly why we need to defend them, because if god truly made all human beings then he also made gay human being (if you believe that god made all of mankind), or if you believe as me (non-religious) that evolution made us humans what we are and part of that humanity is gays, and they are just as normal as every other person on this planet..
 
What's this "we," you Onanist? I wear rubber gloves in the shower.

d421eb89c752cd0b5bee086983cdcf99efd7e01dc785cf0fe3e3951c7a88d440.jpg


lol
 
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.
Yea one issue would be that twins share the same womb environment when developing.
 
The most common argument would be that it is both normal and natural:

i. Normal because it is found and accepted by many cultures in remote regions, around the world, and;

ii. Natural because it is found in many different species in nature.

Neither i nor ii imply that it is moral, however. Implying that either i or ii justifies homosexuality as an act is a large fallacy.

That is fine with me. Just dont enforce those morals in our laws.

If you want to gamble, go for it. Many will view it as immoral but that is your personal choice.
If you want to have a homosexual relationship, go for it.
If you want to have a contract (marriage) affirming that relationship, go for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom