• 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
Google the male G spot. You'll find your answer.

You do realize that is most likely not intended, right? Considering that most men don't much care for what is necessary to stimulate that, well yeah, your argument is stupid.
 
Yeah, so? That doesn't mean that don't like other stimulation as well. They probably still like blow jobs. Some women enjoy anal sex too. Some people like all kinds of sex. :shrug:

Sorry Chris. I misunderstood what you were saying. I should have read further back. I thought you were asking about how homosexual men could enjoy "that kind" of sex. My bad
 
You do realize that is most likely not intended, right? Considering that most men don't much care for what is necessary to stimulate that, well yeah, your argument is stupid.

I do believe that is not what is "intended" because none of it is "intended". And why don't most men care for it? Isn't that just social pressure.
 
I do believe that is not what is "intended" because none of it is "intended". And why don't most men care for it? Isn't that just social pressure.

Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?
 
I do believe that is not what is "intended" because none of it is "intended". And why don't most men care for it? Isn't that just social pressure.

Social pressure breaks down a bit when those that expect a certain behavior are not around. It's why girly boys can be all feminine around one crowd and act completely differently around another.
 
I think part of the disagreement here is that "reasons" has different meanings. A reason can refer to intent (why did you quit your job?) or it can refer to how something came to happen (why won't my car start). It's an important distinction because only conscious beings have intent (it's not like your car is refusing to start because she's pissed she caught you looking at the neighbor's new BMW :lol:).

So, since evolution is not a conscious being (if you want to talk about evolution being an extension of God's will, fine but it's God's intent then, not evolution's and that's a whole other can of worms anyway) and cannot have intent, "why" questions about evolution are better asked as "how" questions. Not "Why does sex feel good" but rather "How it came to be that sex feels good". Evolution explains how it came to be, not why. When sex feels good to an animal, that animal will tend to procreate more often, and over time the animal that procreates more often will come to be more prevalent. That is how sex came to feel good to humans. There is no "why" sex feels good. Evolution didn't intend for sex to feel good; evolution doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just an explanation for how the animals that currently exist came to exist in the state that they do.

It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. :lol:). Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.

Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.
 
It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. :lol:). Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.

Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.

Simply put, because going against evolution tends to result in rather poor outcomes much of the time.

Attitudes along the lines of what you describe above have basically lead populations to go into free fall in many parts of the world, and it's unclear when, if ever, they will recover.

Sure, you can rebel against the natural order of things if you want. However, if it's only going to lead to death in the end, what's the point? :shrug:
 
You're not getting it. On no level whatsoever does what you're suggesting work if the reproductive element is removed.

People didn't start rubbing up against one another for no reason just because it felt good, and then magically discover that babies came afterwards.

What almost certainly happened was that some species way back when was pleasurelessly having sex, and some members of the species simply happened to adapt in such a way that it felt "good" as well. Those individuals were more likely to pass on their genes than the ones who reproduced without pleasure, and so their lineage survived where the others did not.

This is basic cause and effect here. You've simply got the order backwards.

So you're suggesting that at some very primitive point in our evolution, sex was purely motivated by the instinct to procreate and that the pleasurable aspect of it evolved later by chance? Then, because it felt good for some those animals did it more often so they came to outnumber the species that did it less?
 
Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?

Bingo. Anyone that doesn't see that is not intended as an entry point is a bit slow on the uptake.
 
Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?

Um, no. Have you read about this at all?
 
I think part of the disagreement here is that "reasons" has different meanings. A reason can refer to intent (why did you quit your job?) or it can refer to how something came to happen (why won't my car start). It's an important distinction because only conscious beings have intent (it's not like your car is refusing to start because she's pissed she caught you looking at the neighbor's new BMW :lol:).

So, since evolution is not a conscious being (if you want to talk about evolution being an extension of God's will, fine but it's God's intent then, not evolution's and that's a whole other can of worms anyway) and cannot have intent, "why" questions about evolution are better asked as "how" questions. Not "Why does sex feel good" but rather "How it came to be that sex feels good". Evolution explains how it came to be, not why. When sex feels good to an animal, that animal will tend to procreate more often, and over time the animal that procreates more often will come to be more prevalent. That is how sex came to feel good to humans. There is no "why" sex feels good. Evolution didn't intend for sex to feel good; evolution doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just an explanation for how the animals that currently exist came to exist in the state that they do.

It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. :lol:). Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.

Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.

Yes, well you may have sex because it feels good, but mother nature has her own reasons for sex feeling good. I believe it is designed to feel good so that you will want to do it. Of course, because we are intelligent creatures, we are aware that sex leads to babies, so we use precautions. It's not like it's something you would be aware of anyways. MOST men are attracted to beautiful healthy-looking and young women. There are reasons for this.
 
So you're suggesting that at some very primitive point in our evolution, sex was purely motivated by the instinct to procreate and that the pleasurable aspect of it evolved later by chance? Then, because it felt good for some those animals did it more often so they came to outnumber the species that did it less?

Precisely.

It's frankly still motivated primarily by the intrinsic need to pass on one's genes even today. Pleasure is simply the incentive.
 
Last edited:
Social pressure breaks down a bit when those that expect a certain behavior are not around. It's why girly boys can be all feminine around one crowd and act completely differently around another.

and some don't. You think for one minute that the bedroom is actually the place where a man who is concerned about appearing virile and manly would be most inclined stop concerning himself with the social conventions that he believes make him appear virile and manly?? Um, no.
 
Simply put, because going against evolution tends to result in rather poor outcomes much of the time.

Attitudes along the lines of what you describe above have basically lead populations to go into free fall in many parts of the world, and it's unclear when, if ever, they will recover.

Sure, you can rebel against the natural order of things if you want. However, if it's only going to lead to death in the end, what's the point? :shrug:

That's true, sure. But in that case we're looking to evolution (and our knowledge of biology in general) as a guide for understanding how actions can help (or hinder) us in achieving our goals. But we're on our own to decide those goals in the first place.

If we decide that we want the human race to continue after we die (as most of us do), then our knowledge of biology tells us we damn well better have sex.
 
and some don't. You think for one minute that the bedroom is actually the place where a man who is concerned about appearing virile and manly would be most inclined stop concerning himself with the social conventions that he believes make him appear virile and manly?? Um, no.

Not sure, but it is well documented that men that pretend to be manly around their friends and in the public can act very differently while in the private around their spouse.
 
No, I'm really not. :lol:

The significantly increased risk for injury with anal sex and the general necessity of artificial forms of lubrication more than speaks to that much.

Well, apparently it is pretty popular. I guess adaptation has occurred.:peace
 
Yes, well you may have sex because it feels good, but mother nature has her own reasons for sex feeling good. I believe it is designed to feel good so that you will want to do it.

Mother nature can't "design" anything because mother nature isn't a conscious being. If you believe mother nature is a conscious being, then I think you've got a few screws loose.

Of course, because we are intelligent creatures, we are aware that sex leads to babies, so we use precautions.

Uh-huh.

It's not like it's something you would be aware of anyways.

Why, Chris, you wound me!


MOST men are attracted to beautiful healthy-looking and young women.

Uh-huh.

There are reasons for this.

If you mean "reasons" in that there is a series of events that caused it to be this way, yes. If you mean "reasons" in that there was some intent for it to be this way, then no.
 
Well, apparently it is pretty popular. I guess adaptation has occurred.:peace

Yes, and that "adaptation" is otherwise known as "lube" and the incredible glut of misinformation and misconceptions spread about the act by modern pornography which tends to gloss over the more unpleasant and inconvenient realities which go into it.

The statistics say what, 30% of heterosexual couples try anal at some point?

Most don't try it again, for good reason. :lol:
 
Mother nature can't "design" anything because mother nature isn't a conscious being. If you believe mother nature is a conscious being, then I think you've got a few screws loose.

Mother nature is a figure of speech, I thought you might realize that. :roll: We don't just have sex for the sake of having sex.

Uh-huh.



Why, Chris, you wound me!




Uh-huh.

Okay, I guess you agree with those statements.


If you mean "reasons" in that there is a series of events that caused it to be this way, yes. If you mean "reasons" in that there was some intent for it to be this way, then no.

Yes, we were intended to reproduce, just like all animals. To say otherwise is just . . . stupid.
 
Mother nature is a figure of speech, I thought you might realize that. :roll:

:lol: This is almost exactly what I pointed out. People use "mother nature" and "designed" as figures of speech. There is no mother nature and evolution didn't design us. The problem is when people, such as yourself, often forget this and take the words literally. As if mother nature literally "intends" us to do anything. That's ridiculous, it's a figure of speech. Evolution doesn't actually intend for us do anything.

We don't just have sex for the sake of having sex.

Who said that? Certainly not me.

Okay, I guess you agree with those statements.

That's what "uh-huh" usually means, yes. :mrgreen:

Yes, we were intended to reproduce, just like all animals.

Only as a figure of speech. Not literally.

To say otherwise is just . . . stupid.

To say otherwise is to recognize the difference between a figure of speech and reality.
 
:lol: This is almost exactly what I pointed out. People use "mother nature" and "designed" as figures of speech. There is no mother nature and evolution didn't design us. The problem is when people, such as yourself, often forget this and take the words literally. As if mother nature literally "intends" us to do anything. That's ridiculous, it's a figure of speech. Evolution doesn't actually intend for us do anything.



Who said that? Certainly not me.



That's what "uh-huh" usually means, yes. :mrgreen:



Only as a figure of speech. Not literally.



To say otherwise is to recognize the difference between a figure of speech and reality.

Nope, it's a biological imperative for ALL animal species to reproduce. Some creatures actually die in order JUST to reproduce.
 
Back
Top Bottom