• 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
What I can't believe is your total ****ing blatant refusal to accept that people have sex to have an organism. I was married for ten years and had sex thousands of times. Only for a few months two different times did we actually want to reproduce. NONE of the other times was that even remotely wanted. You brought up the want. Now you ignore it.



Agreed. I have pointed all this out and it has been conveniently ignored.

People have sex to have an organism huh? Well, yeah, I guess that's basically what I'm saying.

You are so dense. Of course they have sex to have an orgasm. Sex feels good for the purposes of reproduction. If it didn't feel good, no one would do it.
 
You really haven't done too much of anything, hate to break it to you. :lol: You are just trying to simplify a complicated issue.

If I haven't done much of anything then you haven't done jack **** and YOU are the one trying to simplify it. YOU are the one saying it is all about wanting to reproduce. I am saying that the issue is more complicated than that and that "want" is the deciding factor. You are entitled to whatever opinion you want though and I am sure that you and your twenty kids can pat each other on the back about it. OH? No twenty + kids? I thought sex was about reproducing...
 
If I haven't done much of anything then you haven't done jack **** and YOU are the one trying to simplify it. YOU are the one saying it is all about wanting to reproduce. I am saying that the issue is more complicated than that and that "want" is the deciding factor. You are entitled to whatever opinion you want though and I am sure that you and your twenty kids can pat each other on the back about it. OH? No twenty + kids? I thought sex was about reproducing...

I can't believe you cannot understand this concept. Unreal and QUITE sad and pathetic.
 
I am not even sure how anyone could answer this question with anything other then yes. Homosexuality is normal. All one has to do is look at nature.
 
Who said it was? The point is if we were all gay, we would die out. We have to reproduce to survive. I mean, really, this is just common sense. I know you want to make gay normal and have your own ideas, but they just aren't feasible in reality.

This argument has no basis in sense or logic. The underlying premise that I am seeing here is that for something to be normal it must be universal. Or something to that effect. Under what logic would everyone have to be gay for homosexual to be normal and/or natural? That is before we even look at all of the homosexuals who do engage in "natural" reproduction. Being gay doesn't mean that you can't have sex with a member of the opposite gender. It means that you have no attraction to them.

Question: How are you using "normal"? If you mean "amount of X in comparison to the overall group" then yes, as most of us have agreed, homosexuality, like lefthandedness is not normal. But just as one can say "it is normal that some people are left handed", so it can also be said, "it is normal that some people are homosexual".
 
This argument has no basis in sense or logic. The underlying premise that I am seeing here is that for something to be normal it must be universal. Or something to that effect. Under what logic would everyone have to be gay for homosexual to be normal and/or natural? That is before we even look at all of the homosexuals who do engage in "natural" reproduction. Being gay doesn't mean that you can't have sex with a member of the opposite gender. It means that you have no attraction to them.

Question: How are you using "normal"? If you mean "amount of X in comparison to the overall group" then yes, as most of us have agreed, homosexuality, like lefthandedness is not normal. But just as one can say "it is normal that some people are left handed", so it can also be said, "it is normal that some people are homosexual".

Exactly, I don't think it's "normal" per se to be attracted to your same sex. That's why they are such a SMALL percentage of the population. It just doesn't make sense in the bigger scheme of thing, so I think wires are crossed somewhere, and it may occur naturally but is not really normal IMO.
 
I am not even sure how anyone could answer this question with anything other then yes. Homosexuality is normal. All one has to do is look at nature.

I would think that would show that it is not normal. Most animals and people are not gay. It's actually quite rare.
 
I would think that would show that it is not normal. Most animals and people are not gay. It's actually quite rare.

It is actually not rare. It is only rare in humans because it is a social taboo.
 
It is actually not rare. It is only rare in humans because it is a social taboo.

I think it still would be rare, in relation to the overall population, even counting those who are "in the closet" so to speak.
 
Exactly, I don't think it's "normal" per se to be attracted to your same sex. That's why they are such a SMALL percentage of the population. It just doesn't make sense in the bigger scheme of thing, so I think wires are crossed somewhere, and it may occur naturally but is not really normal IMO.

Are wires crossed to make a person left handed?
 
I can't believe you cannot understand this concept. Unreal and QUITE sad and pathetic.

So you have twenty kids? Twenty-two? I understand what you are saying Chris... it is just that what you are saying IS WRONG. It is too simplistic. That is what I have been trying to convey to you. Your argument is as sophomoric as saying that the reason that food tastes good is so that we eat it. Well, not all food tastes good. Most grains are simply grass and it was not until crop origins and domestication that we were able to make them taste good. Some people are allergic to strawberry's and will die if they eat them. Well, food tasting good is a BY-PRODUCT of us having to eat. We eat for nutrition, not for taste. Kids are a BY-PRODUCT of wanting to have sex. We have sex because it feels good, not to have kids UNLESS the couple SPECIFICALLY WANTS A KID. That said, we don't even have to have sex. That affirms my logic even further... Look, you don't get it and most likely never will... eighteen kids? Twenty-three? :lol:
 
So you have twenty kids? Twenty-two? I understand what you are saying Chris... it is just that what you are saying IS WRONG. It is too simplistic. That is what I have been trying to convey to you. Your argument is as sophomoric as saying that the reason that food tastes good is so that we eat it. Well, not all food tastes good. Most grains are simply grass and it was not until crop origins and domestication that we were able to make them taste good. Some people are allergic to strawberry's and will die if they eat them. Well, food tasting good is a BY-PRODUCT of us having to eat. Kids are a BY-PRODUCT of wanting to have sex. That said, we don't even have to have sex. That affirms my logic even further... Look, you don't get it and most likely never will... eighteen kids? Twenty-three? :lol:

It absolutely is not. None of the examples you give are instincts anyways, and you are being silly. Sex feels good so that we will have sex. If it didn't feel good, probably women ESPECIALLY would not want to have sex. :roll:
 
It absolutely is not. None of the examples you give are instincts anyways, and you are being silly. Sex feels good so that we will have sex. If it didn't feel good, probably women ESPECIALLY would not want to have sex. :roll:

Eating isn't an instinct? :lol:

Now I KNOW that you are out of your depth...
 
Eating isn't an instinct? :lol:

Now I KNOW that you are out of your depth...

Actually, you're right. Eating probably would be an instinct, but that doesn't make your argument any less silly. Of course if food tasted horrible, we wouldn't eat it. I eat plenty of natural foods and they are delicious, so I don't know what you're talking about.
 
Being left handed or right handed isn't an instinct.

So what are you saying? That we choose to be right or left handed? I doubt that, but I can't see where else you are going.
 
Actually, you're right. Eating probably would be an instinct, but that doesn't make your argument any less silly. Of course if food tasted horrible, we wouldn't eat it. I eat plenty of natural foods and they are delicious, so I don't know what you're talking about.

And if sex didn't feel good but we wanted the species to survive we would still do it...

We don't have sex to have children, we have sex to feel good.
We don't eat to taste yummy food, we eat to remain alive.
 
So what are you saying? That we choose to be right or left handed? I doubt that, but I can't see where else you are going.

I don't really think that handedness counts as an instinct.

instinct noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Involuntary response by an animal, resulting in a predictable and relatively fixed behaviour pattern. Instinctive behaviour is an inherited mechanism that serves to promote the survival of an animal or species. It is most apparent in fighting and sexual activity. The simplest form is the reflex. All animals have instinct, but, in general, the higher the animal form, the more flexible the behaviour. Among mammals, learned behaviour often prevails over instinctive behaviour.
 
It is actually not rare. It is only rare in humans because it is a social taboo.

The way animals engage in homosexuality is more akin to prison rape than modern Western society's conception of the phenomena.

It is a way of establishing dominance and releasing sexual energy when females are either scarce or not in season for mating. It is very rarely an exclusivistic preference.

Even then, it's hardly as "common" as you are making out here in the first place.
 
Last edited:
And if sex didn't feel good but we wanted the species to survive we would still do it...

We don't have sex to have children, we have sex to feel good.
We don't eat to taste yummy food, we eat to remain alive.

There is an instinctual drive to reproduce. Sex feels good for a reason, so that we will reproduce.

Social Basis of Human Sexual Behavior

Kind of a long snippet

Humans, like many other terrestrial life forms, reproduce sexually. We, like all other sexual creatures, are subject to instinctive sexual desire triggered by appropriate criteria.

However, humans are unique in two ways. The first I mentioned in the discussion in Chapter Two Reproduction -- their anatomy has made sex more difficult.

It's the second unique thing about humans that makes their reproductive life unusual: humans can think. Thus, the criteria for desire and selection are greatly complicated. People apply not only physical, but societal, cultural and economic criteria to desire and selection.

The evolution of the human body and mind has resulted in an incredibly complex psychophysiology. This sets humans apart from how all other animals approach reproduction. Males compete for breeding rights, females select the best available male. Many female mammals come into heat, a limited period when she is impregnable. Before and during this period, physiological changes occur that are detectable by the male. She becomes the most desirable female around, and she wants sex. The males line up for her, compete for her, and she selects and mates with the best. When a mare comes into heat, she mates with the alpha stallion (the one that wins the mating battles). She doesn't think about it, she doesn't examine his physique or bank account; if he is the alpha stallion, he is the one with which to mate, since he has proven himself superior to other males. If she doesn't wish to mate with him, she simply walks away.

For other animals, instead of walking away, the female expresses her lack of desire by swatting the male. For example, a lioness, well equipped with weapons and close to the same size, can discourage any male by beating the hell out of him. He, having other females in his harem, shrugs his figurative shoulders and goes elsewhere.

Such is not the case for a human. Men rarely battle each other for breeding rights. Women don't come into heat: they can mate at any time, she can get pregnant any month, deliver any day. Women don't automatically mate with a man because he won a fight. However, people still apply criteria in selecting a mate, and those criteria are gender-linked.

Male Criteria

The human male has a drive to impregnate as many females as possible, to create as many offspring with his genes as possible. (Ehrlichman & Eichenstein, 1992) Thus, he applies criteria typical for a male animal. He looks for women who are impregnable: those who are old enough to be past puberty, but young enough to care for children for at least several years. He looks for healthy (i.e., clear, smooth skin, "bright" eyes, good conformation of body and limbs, etc.) women, so they can carry the fetus to term, deliver it, and care for it after birth. Beyond that, he doesn't really care. She doesn't have to be intelligent, talented, socially aware, or in any other way have a brain. In fact, the dumber she is the easier it would be for him to meet her criteria for desirability since they are less likely to be extensive.

Thus, men have minimal criteria for sexual desire; basically, they are concerned with a woman's anatomy -- as long as a woman looks young enough and healthy, she is desirable. They also consider her beautiful, since to a male beautiful and desirable are virtually synonymous.

What is considered healthy-looking has varied over the years and centuries, and from culture to culture. In periods when there were food shortages, a woman that is now considered obese was thought attractive since her appearance clearly showed she had ample reserves. Other changes such as cosmetics to produce a healthy appearance, costumes that exaggerated the hips and thus gave an impression of an excellent child-bearing structure, etc., have increased men's perception of a woman's desirability as a sexual partner. Of course, few men consciously relate certain features with health, and thus that is why they find them attractive. They simply find women with such features sexually attractive, and that's enough without analyzing why.

Many characteristics are deemed attractive by the culture. That is, they are learned. The human male has a mind as well, and is taught much of the way he is supposed to regard the world. This includes what the female features are that he should consider attractive (i.e., sexually desirable), including non-physical as well as physical attributes. Such non-physical attributes include a woman's mind, accomplishments, and prospects.

Nonetheless, although his culture and society may tell him that he should consider more than anatomy, "people are likely to express approval for socially approved characteristics rather than for what actually attracts them." (Daly, 1983, p. 304) Deep down inside he still howls at the moon when a woman meeting his physical criteria walks by. For a man, thinking reduces sexual desire ("think about baseball").

This does not mean that the human male is a walking hormone. He, like the female, is a member of the human race, and thus is also aware of human society, its constraints and demands.
 
And why aren't we all gay? Because we must reproduce and two gay people cannot, as of yet anyway. Even if some type of medical advance made it so that they could, it still doesn't change basic biological instinct.

There probably is no reason why beyond that its just not a common trait.
 
There probably is no reason why beyond that its just not a common trait.

Because it's very likely not a "trait" in the first place.

It is probably the result of a (comparatively) rare genetic condition, or something getting confused during the early stages of fetal development.
 
Because it's very likely not a "trait" in the first place.

It is probably the result of a (comparatively) rare genetic condition, or something getting confused during the early stages of fetal development.

Exactly, its just something that happens. There is no purpose to it as there is no purpose to right or left handedness.

People anthropomorphize way too many phenomena.
 
There probably is no reason why beyond that its just not a common trait.

I'm skeptical. I just don't think it is a normal instinct for a man to be sexually attracted to another man, or a woman to another woman. It seems to go against all logic IMO.
 
I'm skeptical. I just don't think it is a normal instinct for a man to be sexually attracted to another man, or a woman to another woman. It seems to go against all logic IMO.

human sexuality has never really been logical in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom