• 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
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..

Thigh, what was I thinking. Please forgive my stupid sleep muddled head. It should be "love thy neighbor". Well all I can say is :3oops::slapme::blushing2
 
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.

The fact that you need to know how each person votes demonstrates that purpose of the thread.
 
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's what militant religionists keep insisting, yet they -- and you -- don't have any rational basis for making that ridiculous claim. It's BELIEF, not fact, and a belief that I find quite moronic.
 
That's what militant religionists keep insisting, yet they -- and you -- don't have any rational basis for making that ridiculous claim. It's BELIEF, not fact, and a belief that I find quite moronic.

What do you know, right? Nothing that I've seen.
 
Yea one issue would be that twins share the same womb environment when developing.

What i meant by more likely, is one twin being gay and the other not could result from genetic differences. After all, "identical" twins are twice as likely to be discordant, yet even they don't have truly identical genes. Even so, without the requisite womb hormones, those genes might not trigger, so the brain might not develop to be wired for homosexuality, just like for non twins. With a clone, it would have the same exact genes so only womb environment would alter the developing brain from the cloned person. That's my understanding of it anyway.

There's also other possible explanations. About 20% of identical twins receive disparate amounts of maternal blood, leading to different birth weights and such (twin to twin transfusion syndrome). Fraternal twins also don't share placentas, but that is likely not much a factor since identical twins do, yet they're twice as likely to be concordant for homosexuality.
 
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.

Is it normal and natural? Let’s start with “normal”. The definition for “normal”, according to dictionary.com, is “average”. As gay folks only constitute approximately 2% of the population, it can be said that they are not--by definition--“normal”.

Is homosexuality “natural”? This argument is always bolstered by the “fact” that homosexuality can be seen in nature. However, this is a non-sequitur. Yes, animals in nature can be seen to perform what would appear to be "homosexual acts", yet these acts can be better explained as one animal showing its dominance or simply just trying to satisfy its most base urges. These are, after all, wild animals so how do you go about determining their true “orientation”?

With respect to those who utilize the “nature argument” (i.e. “It’s okay to be homosexual because it can be observed in nature”), there is something else that can be observed in nature, as well. Animals have been observed killing their mates after intercourse and eating their own young.

Are these things “okay” just because we observe them in nature? Is this behavior we should celebrate?
 
The fact that you need to know how each person votes demonstrates that purpose of the thread.

Huh? I make all polls public to prevent spammers kinda thing. On the other hand, I have not even looked at the results of the poll since that is not the real purpose of the thread. Paranoid much?
 
Is it normal and natural? Let’s start with “normal”. The definition for “normal”, according to dictionary.com, is “average”. As gay folks only constitute approximately 2% of the population, it can be said that they are not--by definition--“normal”.

Is homosexuality “natural”? This argument is always bolstered by the “fact” that homosexuality can be seen in nature. However, this is a non-sequitur. Yes, animals in nature can be seen to perform what would appear to be "homosexual acts", yet these acts can be better explained as one animal showing its dominance or simply just trying to satisfy its most base urges. These are, after all, wild animals so how do you go about determining their true “orientation”?

With respect to those who utilize the “nature argument” (i.e. “It’s okay to be homosexual because it can be observed in nature”), there is something else that can be observed in nature, as well. Animals have been observed killing their mates after intercourse and eating their own young.

Are these things “okay” just because we observe them in nature? Is this behavior we should celebrate?

Holy ****ing dishonest! Here is the actual definition of "normal from your source:

[h=2]nor·mal[/h] [nawr-muh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
l] Show IPA
adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2. serving to establish a standard.

3. Psychology . a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.

b. free from any mental disorder; sane.



4. Biology, Medicine/Medical . a. free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.

b. of natural occurrence.



5. Mathematics . a. being at right angles, as a line; perpendicular.

b. of the nature of or pertaining to a mathematical normal.

c. (of an orthogonal system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the square of the absolute value of any function is 1.

d. (of a topological space) having the property that corresponding to every pair of disjoint closed sets are two disjoint open sets, each containing one of the closed sets.

e. (of a subgroup) having the property that the same set of elements results when all the elements of the subgroup are operated on consistently on the left and consistently on the right by any element of the group; invariant.





noun 7. the average or mean: Production may fall below normal.

8. the standard or type.

9. Mathematics . a. a perpendicular line or plane, especially one perpendicular to a tangent line of a curve, or a tangent plane of a surface, at the point of contact.

b. the portion of this perpendicular line included between its point of contact with the curve and the x- axis.

I really don't care what definition people use, but for god's sake, at least try and be honest about it.
 
Holy ****ing dishonest! Here is the actual definition of "normal from your source:



I really don't care what definition people use, but for god's sake, at least try and be honest about it.

What a f**cking amateur.

Take a look at no. 7 on the list in your own post. What does is say?

Dishonest my a$$.
 
What a f**cking amateur.

Take a look at no. 7 on the list in your own post. What does is say?

Dishonest my a$$.

You claimed your source said to quote you: "according to dictionary.com, is “average”". In fact, according to your source, the closest definition to that is "noun 7. the average or mean: Production may fall below normal", which is only one of several definitions, and is for the noun form of normal, which is not appropriate here(remember grammar class in school?). Instead of saying that you defined it as such, you tried to be cute, and got caught.
 
You claimed your source said to quote you: "according to dictionary.com, is “average”". In fact, according to your source, the closest definition to that is "noun 7. the average or mean: Production may fall below normal", which is only one of several definitions, and is for the noun form of normal, which is not appropriate here(remember grammar class in school?). Instead of saying that you defined it as such, you tried to be cute, and got caught.

Wow...yeah, you're not even close...

Also from dictionary.com:


av·er·age [av-er-ij, av-rij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean: Her golf average is in the 90s. My average in science has gone from B to C this semester.
2.
a typical amount, rate, degree, etc.; norm.
3.
Statistics. arithmetic mean.
4.
Mathematics . a quantity intermediate to a set of quantities.
5.
Commerce .
a.
a charge paid by the master of a ship for such services as pilotage or towage.
b.
an expense, partial loss, or damage to a ship or cargo.
c.
the incidence of such an expense or loss to the owners or their insurers.
d.
an equitable apportionment among all the interested parties of such an expense or loss. Compare general average, particular average.

And, by the way, if you think I'm interested in debating the definitions of words that are easily looked up in a dictionary then you truly have no clue.

Like it or not--by definition--you lose.
 
Wow...yeah, you're not even close...

Also from dictionary.com:


av·er·age [av-er-ij, av-rij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean: Her golf average is in the 90s. My average in science has gone from B to C this semester.
2.
a typical amount, rate, degree, etc.; norm.
3.
Statistics. arithmetic mean.
4.
Mathematics . a quantity intermediate to a set of quantities.
5.
Commerce .
a.
a charge paid by the master of a ship for such services as pilotage or towage.
b.
an expense, partial loss, or damage to a ship or cargo.
c.
the incidence of such an expense or loss to the owners or their insurers.
d.
an equitable apportionment among all the interested parties of such an expense or loss. Compare general average, particular average.

And, by the way, if you think I'm interested in debating the definitions of words that are easily looked up in a dictionary then you truly have no clue.

Like it or not--by definition--you lose.

Noun form, not adjective. Please to learn grammar. And it does not change that your attempt to pass off your definition as being from dictionary.com failed. Also probably good to learn that when you try and use sources to make things seem "official", your source better say what you claim or your lie will get caught and exposed to every one.
 
Noun form, not adjective. Please to learn grammar. And it does not change that your attempt to pass off your definition as being from dictionary.com failed. Also probably good to learn that when you try and use sources to make things seem "official", your source better say what you claim or your lie will get caught and exposed to every one.

That's hilarious. You want to fuss about my grammar when your own is appalling. Just check out the first sentence in your post--it can't even be considered a sentence. And your very next sentence isn't much better.

And what any of this has to do with the subject at hand I have no idea.
 
Huh? I make all polls public to prevent spammers kinda thing. On the other hand, I have not even looked at the results of the poll since that is not the real purpose of the thread. Paranoid much?

Spammers :lamo
 
How an you have a poll like this? It is not a matter of opinion. It's like asking "are owls real?"
 
Spammers :lamo


Have not noticed it as much lately, but used to be some one(s) would log out and vote repeatedly in polls. Ask any one who has been around awhile.
 
Have not noticed it as much lately, but used to be some one(s) would log out and vote repeatedly in polls. Ask any one who has been around awhile.

I'm a little confused. I get what natural means, but what's with the normal?
 
I am not pro gay pride. I am pro love. And there ain't no love or concern coming from you.
No, and there never will be. It's really sad.

What you are seeing from posters like the one you responded to is fear, similar to that of a cornered animal.

Some people build their beliefs on political shifting sand.

You see more and more social acceptance of homosexuals, even more churches performing same sex marriages. It's only a matter of time before they all do.

Some people are just mad, or even scared that nobody wants to share their beliefs any more. It's existential angst.
 
Hey DUDE - here's what I was responding to:


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

Our society is built on a right to privacy, not the other way around. Butting OUT is the default. Butting IN is considered disrespectful
 
Our society is built on a right to privacy, not the other way around. Butting OUT is the default. Butting IN is considered disrespectful

I would relish your privacy. Instead we get the debased gay pride parades and all the debauchery that goes along with the movement.
 
it is their " normal" and "natural" .thats all l know about it
 
I would relish your privacy. Instead we get the debased gay pride parades and all the debauchery that goes along with the movement.

I am trying to understand your "logic". :lol:

Because I spoke up we get gay pride parades? Is that what you are indicating? Man, use some logic, logic man.
 
I think it is natural, in the sense that the biological/mental processes which cause a person to be attracted to a person of the same sex can be natural. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past science to come up with a way to suppress or trigger such a thing...

When/if that occurs, I'd say a person's sexual orientation is totally up to them...if they can pay a doctor to change it, that would throw an entire toolbox into the current calculations, wouldn't it?

And it would open up an entirely new can of worms for people fighting bigotry - and for bigots themselves - how do they determine who to defend/attack if a person can change at will?

Well that thought chain got a little scary...
 
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.
...so, like being born with a tail, homosexuality is both normal and natural?
 
Back
Top Bottom