- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 10,032
- Reaction score
- 4,966
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's natural in the sense, that yes, it's a naturally occuring thing and we need to accept it as it is. Homosexually can be observed in animals too, like lions and dolphins and various primates, etc
Heterosexuality is also natural. As in, it's natural that people are either straight or gay. I mean, we will be able to locate the "gay gene", which NO, we haven't done so yet. That's just bad journalism. There are a whole lot of genes that determine sexuality just like there are a whole lot of genes that determine many aspects of the human condition.
Whether bisexuality as a sexual preference is a natural occuring thing or is it something taught is less clear but it's another discussion all together and if you adopt the view that homosexuality is natural and heretosexuality is natural, there is no reason why combining them to create bisexuality should be considered anything different.
Whether it's normal, what do you understand by normality is a far more subjective definition than what is considered natural.
I mean, it is normal for me to do a certain activity every day but for others, it would not be normal. Like running for instance, it is normal for me to get up at 5:30 and go out for a run.
But thinking in terms of macro society, I don't know if whether the designation of "normal" should be denied to homosexuals. I think it shouldn't be but I am not paying much attention to this concept. I mean, from my perspective, there is no point in legislating or doing some sort of discussion on the issue. So it shouldn't become a flash-word like there are some words today in society. Like how some people think and tend to pursue the agenda that the term "homo" which is shorthand for homosexual, is an insult rather than just a shorthand version of homosexual. And people will call you on that. So that's a talking point society has to have whether or not it becomes a "bad" word, sorry, politically incorrect word. And add another term to the PC lexicon. So I don't think the discussion should happen or if it does, i think the result of that should be that it makes no bloody difference if one uses the term "normal" to differentiate straight from gay people. But then again, I can also understand why some gays would be offended by being left out of the "normal" pool of people. I just don't know if the correct way to tackle this issue is through the eyes of the PC police. That's all.
I would like to remind people of another thing.
a) not everything that is natural is good for you.
This discussion is framed on stupidity. It honestly is. "natural". This just shows the kind of superficial understanding of reality that only an unenlightened society would have. People use the term "natural" as a selling point. You see it on products and all sort of things that cost x% more because they're "natural" as opposed to the other. As if "natural" is somehow better. No, it isn't. With the exception of 1 banana, the cavendish banana, all the others are "natural" and you can't eat them coz they'll poison you (not necesarily deadly but you could get some disease or stomach aches). The sole banana that can be eaten is only such because of many works in "molding" the banana the way it is. On a side note, this is why that guy from that anti-atheist video about how the banana is the ahteists' worst nightmare is stupid in at least 2 ways. But that's a different story.
You know what else is natural? A pack of wolves. And they'll eat you.
Natural is not a selling point. It is in an unenlightened society.
b) Normal is an adaptable notion.
Neutral example: 100 years ago it was normal to ride a horse, now it's normal to get on the bus or drive a car. It would seem odd if someone rode a horse today in the city.
Degenerative example: 100 years ago it was normal for society to dress properly when you went outside, listen to proper music and discuss matters using a certain level of language and good manners. Nowadays it's normal for some people to listen to rap, dress like loser gangsters and speak in a way that if we had any self-respect left, we'd consider it audio torture. Listening to proper music is considered snobism, dressing up properly is considered "business" or the sign of snobs, and talking properly and explaining your opinions in a coherent manner and not using "you know what I mean?" all the time is considered talking down to people as opposed to being "real". Real dumb I guess. And it all ties in together.
Positive example: It used to be normal for men (usually of the working class, I don't mean to demean the working class, I am part of it, but it was a reality) to be alcoholics and beat their wives when they got home. I mean, look it up, that's one of the reasons why prohibition was considered a good initiative to start. it didn't work, but alocholism was a real problem and something had to be done. Nowadays, alcoholism is down, domestic abuse is also down and things are better. People are more responsible from this perspective.
Heterosexuality is also natural. As in, it's natural that people are either straight or gay. I mean, we will be able to locate the "gay gene", which NO, we haven't done so yet. That's just bad journalism. There are a whole lot of genes that determine sexuality just like there are a whole lot of genes that determine many aspects of the human condition.
Whether bisexuality as a sexual preference is a natural occuring thing or is it something taught is less clear but it's another discussion all together and if you adopt the view that homosexuality is natural and heretosexuality is natural, there is no reason why combining them to create bisexuality should be considered anything different.
Whether it's normal, what do you understand by normality is a far more subjective definition than what is considered natural.
I mean, it is normal for me to do a certain activity every day but for others, it would not be normal. Like running for instance, it is normal for me to get up at 5:30 and go out for a run.
But thinking in terms of macro society, I don't know if whether the designation of "normal" should be denied to homosexuals. I think it shouldn't be but I am not paying much attention to this concept. I mean, from my perspective, there is no point in legislating or doing some sort of discussion on the issue. So it shouldn't become a flash-word like there are some words today in society. Like how some people think and tend to pursue the agenda that the term "homo" which is shorthand for homosexual, is an insult rather than just a shorthand version of homosexual. And people will call you on that. So that's a talking point society has to have whether or not it becomes a "bad" word, sorry, politically incorrect word. And add another term to the PC lexicon. So I don't think the discussion should happen or if it does, i think the result of that should be that it makes no bloody difference if one uses the term "normal" to differentiate straight from gay people. But then again, I can also understand why some gays would be offended by being left out of the "normal" pool of people. I just don't know if the correct way to tackle this issue is through the eyes of the PC police. That's all.
I would like to remind people of another thing.
a) not everything that is natural is good for you.
This discussion is framed on stupidity. It honestly is. "natural". This just shows the kind of superficial understanding of reality that only an unenlightened society would have. People use the term "natural" as a selling point. You see it on products and all sort of things that cost x% more because they're "natural" as opposed to the other. As if "natural" is somehow better. No, it isn't. With the exception of 1 banana, the cavendish banana, all the others are "natural" and you can't eat them coz they'll poison you (not necesarily deadly but you could get some disease or stomach aches). The sole banana that can be eaten is only such because of many works in "molding" the banana the way it is. On a side note, this is why that guy from that anti-atheist video about how the banana is the ahteists' worst nightmare is stupid in at least 2 ways. But that's a different story.
You know what else is natural? A pack of wolves. And they'll eat you.
Natural is not a selling point. It is in an unenlightened society.
b) Normal is an adaptable notion.
Neutral example: 100 years ago it was normal to ride a horse, now it's normal to get on the bus or drive a car. It would seem odd if someone rode a horse today in the city.
Degenerative example: 100 years ago it was normal for society to dress properly when you went outside, listen to proper music and discuss matters using a certain level of language and good manners. Nowadays it's normal for some people to listen to rap, dress like loser gangsters and speak in a way that if we had any self-respect left, we'd consider it audio torture. Listening to proper music is considered snobism, dressing up properly is considered "business" or the sign of snobs, and talking properly and explaining your opinions in a coherent manner and not using "you know what I mean?" all the time is considered talking down to people as opposed to being "real". Real dumb I guess. And it all ties in together.
Positive example: It used to be normal for men (usually of the working class, I don't mean to demean the working class, I am part of it, but it was a reality) to be alcoholics and beat their wives when they got home. I mean, look it up, that's one of the reasons why prohibition was considered a good initiative to start. it didn't work, but alocholism was a real problem and something had to be done. Nowadays, alcoholism is down, domestic abuse is also down and things are better. People are more responsible from this perspective.
