NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently debating with my parents about homosexuality and whether it's natural or not. They argued that it wasn't, just like necrophilia, pedophilia, and being born with an extra hand. I brought up population control, although they rejected that idea with there being no reason for control.

Now, I present this debate to you, NSG. I've decided to make a poll, and not only poll whether it's natural or not, but decided to also poll whether you think they should receive the same freedoms as we do. By freedoms, I mean marriage, so when you see the poll option as "same freedoms as we have", I basically mean marriage (as in a civil union, rather than a religious marriage).

So, two questions:

Should they be allowed the same freedoms as heteros? and
Is homosexuality natural/normal?

Debate away.

Yes, and yes.

It's natural, but not normal.

Same freedoms? Perhaps similar status to heterosexual married couples if it simplifies the task of the tax authorities.

Yes, and yes.
Yes.

Oh please search through this board. This topic has been done to death.

For your parents, ask them what about it existing in the animal kingdom. Then tell them about the "activities" of the Bonobo.

Franz De Waal is a good author for them.....

Yes, and yes.

How is it natural? Nature did not mean for us to be homosexual, otherwise the whole procreation thing would fail.

(beware I may play devil's advocate for both sides)

Well, who is to say that pedophilia, necrophilia, and being born with an extra hand are unnatural?

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. Normality and naturality are irrelevant.

Not again...

How is it natural? Nature did not mean for us to be homosexual, otherwise the whole procreation thing would fail.
Natural in the sense that it is natural to expect flaws and errors in any process.

Oh please search through this board. This topic has been done to death.

For your parents, ask them what about it existing in the animal kingdom. Then tell them about the "activities" of the Bonobo.

Franz De Waal is a good author for them.....

It existing in the animal kingdom doesn't make any difference. There are abnormalities in animal births as well as human births.

How is it natural? Nature did not mean for us to be homosexual, otherwise the whole procreation thing would fail.

Nature does not "mean" anything, it is not a conscious being.

It's natural, but not normal.

Same freedoms? Perhaps similar status to heterosexual married couples if it simplifies the task of the tax authorities.

What is normal?

How is it natural? Nature did not mean for us to be homosexual, otherwise the whole procreation thing would fail.

(beware I may play devil's advocate for both sides)
I don't think procreation was ever at risk.

Well, it's not "normal," as it isn't practiced by most, but it exists in nature, and it's been shown not to be a lifestyle choice, so I say let 'em marry.

What is normal?
Heterosexuality. The statistical and biological norm. Homosexuality is a deviation by default.

Natural in the sense that it is natural to expect flaws and errors in any process.

Then the word "unnatural" loses all meaning. What I'm saying is that these flaws and errors are flaws and errors and unnatural.

How is it natural? Nature did not mean for us to be homosexual, otherwise the whole procreation thing would fail.

(beware I may play devil's advocate for both sides)

Nature isn't conciouss, and therefore can't mean for us to do anything. Besides, disease would disease could destroy our species, and yet disease is still "natural."

Then the word "unnatural" loses all meaning. What I'm saying is that these flaws and errors are flaws and errors and unnatural.
That depends entirely on how rigidly one applies the definition.

How is it natural? Nature did not mean for us to be homosexual, otherwise the whole procreation thing would fail.

(beware I may play devil's advocate for both sides)
We observe homosexuality in other animals besides humans. For example, weren't there some news stories about gay penguins in some zoo in Europe recently? I want to say it was in Germany, but I forget.

Nature does not "mean" anything, it is not a conscious being.

Yes, nature means for us to survive. We are programmed with survival of the species, and the reason we are not extinct is because we have a sexual drive to procreate, while other species that do not, become extinct. Homosexuality strays from the normality of our species.

Why is being born with an extra hand unnatural?

It existing in the animal kingdom doesn't make any difference. There are abnormalities in animal births as well as human births.
Doesn't make it unnatural.

We observe homosexuality in other animals besides humans. For example, weren't there some news stories about gay penguins in some zoo in Europe recently? I want to say it was in Germany, but I forget.

A disorder in the animal kingdom is still a disorder.

Yes, nature means for us to survive. We are programmed with survival of the species, and the reason we are not extinct is because we have a sexual drive to procreate, while other species that do not, become extinct. Homosexuality strays from the normality of our species.
Indeed, one can view it as a system loss.

Well, it's not "normal," as it isn't practiced by most, but it exists in nature, and it's been shown not to be a lifestyle choice, so I say let 'em marry.
Painting portraits isn't practiced by most, but we don't label artists abnormal.

Indeed, one can view it as a system loss.

And thus not as per what nature is supposed to be, thus unnatural.

Painting portraits isn't practiced by most, but we don't label artists abnormal.
We do. We just use words like "special" or "gifted".

A disorder in the animal kingdom is still a disorder.
But it's still natural.

What about being born with an extra hand is unnatural?
Was the hand surgically attached in utero? Because that is one unnatural procedure.

It existing in the animal kingdom doesn't make any difference. There are abnormalities in animal births as well as human births.

For it to be an abnormality you have to be able to prove disress for the person. Such as great deal of depression, anxiety, unhappyness.....

It's not an abnormality to the Bonobo as they use sex and pleasure as a way to deal with stressful situations. :D There is far less violence in their world as compared to their cousins the chimps and man.

We do. We just use words like "special" or "gifted".
I thought special meant you wear a hockey helmet when you're not skating and you lick the windows on the short bus.

Yes, nature means for us to survive. We are programmed with survival of the species, and the reason we are not extinct is because we have a sexual drive to procreate, while other species that do not, become extinct. Homosexuality strays from the normality of our species.

Meaning is a concious action. Nature doesn't mean or intend anything for us. It's natural for organisms themselves to mean to survive, but, unless by nature you mean "god," nature wants nothing of us.

Why is being born with an extra hand unnatural?

It is not the way nature intended us to be.

Yes, nature means for us to survive.

No, it doesn't. As I said, "nature" does not mean anything. The natural processes of evolution select for traits that increase the fitness of organisms for their environment.

We are programmed with survival of the species, and the reason we are not extinct is because we have a sexual drive to procreate, while other species that do not, become extinct.

Plenty of species with a sexual drive to procreate have become extinct despite it. The human species may well follow.

Homosexuality strays from the normality of our species.

In the sense of "majority," sure, but so does white skin; is that "unnatural"?

A disorder in the animal kingdom is still a disorder.

And it is still "natural."

Painting portraits isn't practiced by most, but we don't label artists abnormal.

One wouldn't consider it normal to be able to paint on the level of Da Vinci. It's exceptional, another word which can be used in place of abnormal. Just because something isn't "normal" doesn't make it a bad thing.

It is not the way nature intended us to be.

Then why does it happen?

For it to be an abnormality you have to be able to prove disress for the person. Such as great deal of depression, anxiety, unhappyness.....

It's not an abnormality to the Bonobo as they use sex and pleasure as a way to deal with stressful situations. :D There is far less violence in their world as compared to their cousins the chimps and man.
Bonobos are my favorite.

The apes! Look to the apes!

Your poll forces us to commit to a position that has nothing to do with the question.

And thus not as per what nature is supposed to be, thus unnatural.
Hardly. Losses in a heat engine are not "unnatural".

Meaning is a concious action. Nature doesn't mean or intend anything for us. It's natural for organisms themselves to mean to survive, but, unless by nature you mean "god," nature wants nothing of us.

Nature is our default, normal state. It is not the default normal state to be homosexual, because if we'd all be, procreation would fail.

It is not the way nature intended us to be.
So... nature is alive and conscious?

Nature is our default, normal state. It is not the default normal state to be homosexual, because if we'd all be, procreation would fail.

If we were all male, procreation would fail, too. Is masculinity "unnatural"?

A disorder in the animal kingdom is still a disorder.

A disorder implies it is harmful to the individual or the individual can cause harm to others(violence).

It's not a disorder.

In the sense of "majority," sure, but so does white skin; is that "unnatural"?

No, not in the sense of "majority", but in the sense of the survival of the species. Being black does not affect anything. Being homosexual is bad for the species, an abnormality that could prove fatal if universalized.

If we were all male, procreation would fail, too. Is masculinity "unnatural"?
It is a necessary component in procreation. Homosexuality isn't. So the comparison is flawed.

I believe that it is bad for the Human Race, but on the issue of rights and stuff, I believe that it should be decided by the people [in cities and counties]

We do. We just use words like "special" or "gifted".

Aren't you special and gifted? :p

If we were all male, procreation would fail, too. Is masculinity "unnatural"?

No, it is necessary to procreation, as males as well as females are required for this process.

No, not in the sense of "majority", but in the sense of the survival of the species. Being black does not affect anything. Being homosexual is bad for the species, an abnormality that could prove fatal if universalized.

But whether or not it aids the survival of the species, it is still "natural," that is, "part of nature."

Since it is not, in fact, universalized, and since we have an overpopulation problem, not an underpopulation problem, worrying about homosexuality's "threat" to the survival of the species is absurd.

Natural? Of course. Anything which occurs in nature is natural, and homosexuality occurs in nature. Interestingly enough, so do all of the things the OP's parents were listing as "unnatural". Even if you use the definition "man-made" to be "unnatural", homosexuality is not unnatural, as it is not "man-made".

Is it normal? Not by the strictest definition of the word, no. Most people or other animals are not homosexual, so it cannot be defined as normal. Of course, being left-handed is also not normal.

Is it a defect of some sort? No, not as far as we can tell. Homosexuality is, as all sexualities along the spectrum are, a part of variation within a species. It isn't a defect any more than very light or very dark colored skin are. It causes no health problems to the homosexual and within a social species such as ours, the reproductive success of the person is not even affected. If a homosexual person were to help raise their siblings and nieces/nephews, that person is just as reproductively successful as someone who has children and grandchildren - as just as much shared genetic material will be passed on.

For your parents, ask them what about it existing in the animal kingdom. Then tell them about the "activities" of the Bonobo.

Franz De Waal is a good author for them.....

The existance of homosexuality in the natural world (IE animals) may or may not make it natural behaviour. But just because something is natural behaviour, does not make it good behaviour. Animals will also naturally kill each other over sex partners and food. Does that mean it is natural behaviour and should therefore be protected and defended?

Nature is our default, normal state. It is not the default normal state to be homosexual, because if we'd all be, procreation would fail.

Disease is bad for our species. Do you then consider things like cancer and TB to be unnatural?

Your poll forces us to commit to a position that has nothing to do with the question.

:)

I also think the parent story is false and all the claims are his own.

No, it is necessary to procreation, as males as well as females are required for this process.
Is it likely that all the females would die and there would be only males? Is it likely that homosexuality would be "universalized"?

Aren't you special and gifted? :p
I am a mediocrity, actually. In line with the statistical norm. :p

Hardly. Losses in a heat engine are not "unnatural".

Now I'm just confused...

Disease is bad for our species. Do you then consider things like cancer and TB to be unnatural?

Nature's way of population control.

Yes, nature means for us to survive. We are programmed with survival of the species, and the reason we are not extinct is because we have a sexual drive to procreate, while other species that do not, become extinct. Homosexuality strays from the normality of our species.

Are you harboring a misconception that homosexuals have no drive to reproduce? Homosexuals can and often will reproduce, both among animal species and among human beings.

And thus not as per what nature is supposed to be, thus unnatural.

There is no "what nature is supposed to be," at least not that we can measure. There is only what nature is. If nature was not "supposed to" have homosexuality, then it wouldn't.

It is not the way nature intended us to be.

Nature intended us to be?

Ok why do we have an appendix?

Heterosexuality. The statistical and biological norm. Homosexuality is a deviation by default.

I'll accept that, but I don't like that the poll equates natural and normal. Homosexuality is quite clearly abnormal, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

I would further argue that it's not possible for human behaviour to be unnatural, as we're natural creatures and part of nature. Anything we do is natural by definition.

This is the whole point of the Neurodiversity movement. Just because some people are abnormal doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.

Since it is not, in fact, universalized, and since we have an overpopulation problem, not an underpopulation problem, worrying about homosexuality's "threat" to the survival of the species is absurd.

We do not have an overpopulation problem. The planet can still support another several billion people. And even then, there was homosexuality LONG ago, when there were maybe millions of people.

I'm not worrying about homosexuality's threat to the survival of the species. I'm merely saying that since homosexuality strays from the survival of the species, it is unnatural.

Now I'm just confused...
It's an analogy of sorts, if one views procreation and the continuation of a species as a process, with heterosexuality being useful work and homosexuality being a loss. Both natural, but one being the desired norm.

No, not in the sense of "majority", but in the sense of the survival of the species. Being black does not affect anything. Being homosexual is bad for the species, an abnormality that could prove fatal if universalized.

Are you under the impression that homosexuals are sterile?

No, it is necessary to procreation, as males as well as females are required for this process.

Let's keep solely to the issue of "survival of the species" for a moment.

Your argument was assuming that a trait is only beneficial if it is beneficial when universalized. That is clearly false, as my example illustrated.

It is possible that having a homosexual portion of the population is beneficial, even if it is not beneficial when universalized.

I'll accept that, but I don't like that the poll equates natural and normal. Homosexuality is quite clearly abnormal, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

I would further argue that it's not possible for human behaviour to be unnatural, as we're natural creatures and part of nature. Anything we do is natural by definition.

This is the whole point of the Neurodiversity movement. Just because some people are abnormal doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
My thinking, exactly.

Are you harboring a misconception that homosexuals have no drive to reproduce? Homosexuals can and often will reproduce, both among animal species and among human beings.

Homosexuals do NOT reproduce. How can they reproduce? It is impossible. The only way it would be possible is if they renounced their homosexuality for a period of time.

There is no "what nature is supposed to be," at least not that we can measure. There is only what nature is. If nature was not "supposed to" have homosexuality, then it wouldn't.

We can measure it by survival. Anything that doesn't survive wasn't meant to be by nature, otherwise nature would not have created it. Nature is survival.

I believe that it is bad for the Human Race, but on the issue of rights and stuff, I believe that it should be decided by the people [in cities and counties]

How is it bad for the human race? At most it seems to be a random mutation. The numbers of homosexuals are I think pretty consistent for a percentage of a population. We seem to grow just fine with them around. Even some of them decide to have children! :eek:

Sometimes you have to protect the minority from the majority. Especially when religion is involved.

Just because some people are abnormal doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
Unfortunately, a lot of people object to nuanced semantics and want to drown out the detail with politically correct all-or-nothing terminology.

We do not have an overpopulation problem. The planet can still support another several billion people.

At what standard of living?

And even then, there was homosexuality LONG ago, when there were maybe millions of people.

And when resources and environments were more limited.

I'm not worrying about homosexuality's threat to the survival of the species. I'm merely saying that since homosexuality strays from the survival of the species, it is unnatural.

How is "strays from the survival of the species" equivalent to "unnatural"?

Nature's way of population control.

If disease is population control, why isn't homosexuality?

Homosexuals do NOT reproduce. How can they reproduce? It is impossible. The only way it would be possible is if they renounced their homosexuality for a period of time.
:D That's so cute.

Homosexuality may not be a normal occurence in the sense that it's a minority, but you can't say it goes against nature for somebody to be homosexual since we all come from the same conditions, being of a father and mother, and many homosexuals declare that it was no learned trait. Is it not natural for someone to be born with a case of kleptomania, because not many people have the disorder? That just makes it uncommon, which means nothing in the long run.

It's an analogy of sorts, if one views procreation and the continuation of a species as a process, with heterosexuality being useful work and homosexuality being a loss. Both natural, but one being the desired norm.

Ah, I understand then... but couldn't you argue that that "loss" is not the way it's meant to be?

Are you under the impression that homosexuals are sterile?

No, simply that they cannot procreate while remaining homosexuals.

This debate has been going around alot (especially the marrigage issue)Ill say it once more that homosexuality is natural for some humans.It may be abnormal since most humans and animals do not exibit this behavciour but at least some individulas are born homosexual.

But whether or not it aids the survival of the species, it is still "natural," that is, "part of nature."

Since it is not, in fact, universalized, and since we have an overpopulation problem, not an underpopulation problem, worrying about homosexuality's "threat" to the survival of the species is absurd.

Frankly we don't have and overpopulation problem [in the Americas]... and even the other places, there is still plenty of room for people. Frankly, the last thing we [western civilization] need is to stop breeding, especially in the face of radical islam which is invading europe. So europeans, start making alot of babies, cause i dont want eurabia!

It is possible that having a homosexual portion of the population is beneficial, even if it is not beneficial when universalized.

And how is that possible?

I believe that it is bad for the Human Race,

How so?

but on the issue of rights and stuff, I believe that it should be decided by the people [in cities and counties]

Should the rights of all minority groups be decided by a majority vote? In that case, is it ok to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus again?

The existance of homosexuality in the natural world (IE animals) may or may not make it natural behaviour.

Actually, the existence of anything in nature makes it, by definition, natural.

But just because something is natural behaviour, does not make it good behaviour.

Strawman. No one has argued that it does.


I'm not worrying about homosexuality's threat to the survival of the species. I'm merely saying that since homosexuality strays from the survival of the species, it is unnatural.

Homosexuality does not in any way stray from the survival of the species. Even if homosexuals do not procreate, their presence can actually contribute to the survival of a social species. Non-breeding members of a pack/pride/herd/tribe/etc. who help raise the offspring of others will increase the survival rate of said offspring.

No honest person can deny anymore that homosexuality is "unnatural" on account of the great many other species with homosexuals.

I will repeat what some people have said because i happen to agree. Homosexuality is not the norm because there are many more heterosexuals in the world, but that doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's less common. Being albino isn't the norm either, or composing music like Beethoven, or writing like Shakespeare, etc. that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with those things.

I still think that homosexuality is perfectly natural and that they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

Ok, I am overloaded and burnt out. This is not even my viewpoint, I was mostly looking for counter-arguments to gaps in my thinking.

I will now withdraw.

Ah, I understand then... but couldn't you argue that that "loss" is not the way it's meant to be?
I suppose you could, but one must also conceed that some form of losses are inevitable in any process. Homosexuality may be an unintended deviation which serves no evolutionary purpose, but its existence is inevitable simply because it is an error which is possible.

It is a necessary component in procreation. Homosexuality isn't. So the comparison is flawed.
You're not taking competition into consideration.

:)

I also think the parent story is false and all the claims are his own.

Nope, see my latest post (before this one).

Frankly we don't have and overpopulation problem [in the Americas]...

We have a pollution problem, and that amounts to the same thing, at least at the current technological level.

and even the other places, there is still plenty of room for people.

I'm not talking about "room."

Frankly, the last thing we [western civilization] need is to stop breeding, especially in the face of radical islam which is invading europe. So europeans, start making alot of babies, cause i dont want eurabia!

:rolleyes:

I suppose you could, but one must also conceed that some form of losses are inevitable in any process. Homosexuality may be an unintended deviation which serves no evolutionary purpose, but its existence is inevitable simply because it is an error which is possible.

You just summed up everything.

:rolleyes:
I couldn't have said it better myself.

How so?


Should the rights of all minority groups be decided by a majority vote? In that case, is it ok to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus again?


How? Does not encourage the production of children [that sounds somewhat industrial I know]

But, should the rights of the masses be decided by the few? I myself am a Afroeurasian-American, I am an extreme minority- but you don't see me trying to advance myself by race/blood alone. And when I mean cities and counties, I am suggesting that cities and counties should set their own laws for their inhabitants... and they should be respected by other cities/counties. So therefore one county could allow it and another could ban it, and as long as you are a resident in one of those counties, you have that right- but if you move to a place that bans it, you must forfit it.

Homosexuals do NOT reproduce.

Yes, my dear, they do.

How can they reproduce?

The same way heterosexuals or bisexuals reproduce - by having sex with a member of another sex, allowing a sperm and an egg to combine, and having the woman carry the pregnancy to term.

The only way it would be possible is if they renounced their homosexuality for a period of time.

Sexuality is not something that can be "renounced". You don't have to be attracted to someone to have sex with them, and attraction is what sexuality defines. A homosexual is only attracted to members of the same sex, but there is no physical barrier to prevent them from having sex with a member of the opposite sex.

Many a homosexual man has been pushed into a marriage with a woman (and vice versa). Any homosexual who wants to reproduce naturally can choose to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, even though they are not attracted to that person.

In birds, it is not uncommon for a homosexual animal - one that will only form pair-bonds with same-sex animals, to reproduce with another animal, and then raise the offspring with his/her same-sex partner.


We can measure it by survival. Anything that doesn't survive wasn't meant to be by nature, otherwise nature would not have created it. Nature is survival.

Nature creates all sorts of things that don't survive - or don't survive long. Thus, these things are quite obviously "meant to be". Of course, homosexuals survive just fine.


No, simply that they cannot procreate while remaining homosexuals.

Sexuality is not defined by who you have sex with. It is defined by who you are attracted to. A person of any sexuality can be celibate all of their lives - never having sex with anyone - and will still be asexual, homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.

You just summed up everything.
Woot, I win this thread. :cool:

Off to bed, work tomorrow.

The existance of homosexuality in the natural world (IE animals) may or may not make it natural behaviour.


Depends on your definition of natural.

In this situation it abolishes the claim that homosexuality is a choice.


But just because something is natural behavior, does not make it good behavior.


It depends on the situation. For the Bonobo it is a very good for the reduction of violence in their communities.

Even then you have to show that it's a bad behavior. How is the fact that a homosexual does not have children any worst then say a soldier getting killed in a war before he could reproduce? What about a woman who dies in a car accident?

Society continues.

Animals will also naturally kill each other over sex partners and food.

It depends on the animal and the situation. In most cases no, they wont. Especially, if they live in groups.

Does that mean it is natural behavior and should therefore be protected and defended?

Infanticide happens in the primate world. Is it bad? Yes for the previous male and the victim. Is it good for the new male? Yes. The females go into heat faster then waiting for the offspring to be weaned.

I was recently debating with my parents about homosexuality and whether it's natural or not. They argued that it wasn't, just like necrophilia, pedophilia, and being born with an extra hand. I brought up population control, although they rejected that idea with there being no reason for control.

Now, I present this debate to you, NSG. I've decided to make a poll, and not only poll whether it's natural or not, but decided to also poll whether you think they should receive the same freedoms as we do. By freedoms, I mean marriage, so when you see the poll option as "same freedoms as we have", I basically mean marriage (as in a civil union, rather than a religious marriage).

So, two questions:

Should they be allowed the same freedoms as heteros? and
Is homosexuality natural/normal?

Debate away.

What the FUCK does a fact of the person's existence, that Mr(s). X prefers someone of the same sex, have ANYTHING to do with whether freedom should be allowed? I was born with blue eyes, I can't change this anymore than someone can change his or her sexual orientation. I'm getting married two weeks from Saturday. Should the State of California deny me a license solely because of my eye color? Should the Federal government throw me out of the Navy because when I give a thumbs-up my thumb hooks instead of going straight up and down?

Besides which, something no one has mentioned (in this thread at least), freedoms aren't "given." You're born with them and the government slowly whittles them away. (It's why the Bill of Rights says things like "the freedom of [insert freedom here] shall not be abridged/infringed/folded/spindled/mutilated."

And when I mean cities and counties, I am suggesting that cities and counties should set their own laws for their inhabitants... and they should be respected by other cities/counties. So therefore one county could allow it and another could ban it, and as long as you are a resident in one of those counties, you have that right- but if you move to a place that bans it, you must forfit it.

But why do cities and counties have the right to take away the rights of their inhabitants on the basis of sexual orientation?

How? Does not encourage the production of children [that sounds somewhat industrial I know]

It doesn't discourage it either.

Voting does not encourage the "production of children." Does that mean that voting is bad for society? Being left-handed does not encourage the "production of children". Does that mean that being left-handed is bad for society?

But, should the rights of the masses be decided by the few?

Of course not. That is why every citizen should have access to the *same* rights.

Of course, the minorities are not trying to trample the rights of the masses. Nobody is trying to call for a vote on whether or not WASPs should get rights, now are they? You, however, in all your obvious bigotry, are calling for a vote on whether or not a minority which you are not a part of should be granted the rights afforded to other human beings.


I myself am a Afroeurasian-American, I am an extreme minority- but you don't see me trying to advance myself by race/blood alone.

Good. Of course, I don't see what that has to do with the conversation.

And when I mean cities and counties, I am suggesting that cities and counties should set their own laws for their inhabitants... and they should be respected by other cities/counties. So therefore one county could allow it and another could ban it, and as long as you are a resident in one of those counties, you have that right- but if you move to a place that bans it, you must forfit it.

So, if your county decided that "Afroeurasian-Americans" had to sit at the back of the bus or couldn't marry, you'd be perfectly ok with that?

Not natural, in the sense that the body isn't biologically designed for it (though buggering is accomodated for!), but why should what's natural matter anyway?

Not natural, in the sense that the body isn't biologically designed for it (though buggering is accomodated for!), but why should what's natural matter anyway?

The body of a homosexual was quite obviously "designed" to be homosexual, or they wouldn't be physically attracted to members of the same sex.

Not natural, in the sense that the body isn't biologically designed for it (though buggering is accomodated for!), but why should what's natural matter anyway?
If the shoe fits?

The body of a homosexual was quite obviously "designed" to be homosexual, or they wouldn't be physically attracted to members of the same sex.

...You've lost me. How is the body of a homosexual different from that of a heterosexual? It's a mental feeling to be attracted to someone of the same sex, your body doesn't tell you to be.

Homosexuals do NOT reproduce. How can they reproduce? It is impossible. The only way it would be possible is if they renounced their homosexuality for a period of time.


Ok. How about 2 lesbians asking a gay man to make a "donation" so they can have a child? I know the man involved. ;)


We can measure it by survival. Anything that doesn't survive wasn't meant to be by nature, otherwise nature would not have created it. Nature is survival.

No. Chance plays into survivability. How did nature decide for a meteor to wipe out the dinosaur?

Why do we have prosimians?

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean the best one.

I was recently debating with my parents about homosexuality and whether it's natural or not. They argued that it wasn't, just like necrophilia, pedophilia, and being born with an extra hand. I brought up population control, although they rejected that idea with there being no reason for control.
Natural?
Being born with an extra hand is natural unless a mother took some drugs that caused it to happen. Being gay is natural unless some one tortured them until they loved people of the same sex.

Normal?
If you define normal to be what the majority are like then no. But I don't think there are too many people who are just like the majority in every respect.

The body of a homosexual was quite obviously "designed" to be homosexual, or they wouldn't be physically attracted to members of the same sex.

See, that's assuming the homosexual is biologically different from the heterosexual, which is absolute nonsense. Attraction is really more psychological a thing.

So, if your county decided that "Afroeurasian-Americans" had to sit at the back of the bus or couldn't marry, you'd be perfectly ok with that?

I would move... but I don't use the bus so I would have no problem...

We do not have an overpopulation problem. The planet can still support another several billion people. And even then, there was homosexuality LONG ago, when there were maybe millions of people.

The only way for the planet to be able to support another several billion people is for the current population to be negative. The carrying capacity (the population that can be sustained indefinitely) for humans is approximately 1 billion individuals.

...You've lost me. How is the body of a homosexual different from that of a heterosexual? It's a mental feeling to be attracted to someone of the same sex, your body doesn't tell you to be.

Actually, it does. The brains of homosexual men, for instance, are structured more like the brains of heterosexual women than the brains of heterosexual men. Homosexual men respond to male pheremones in much the same way as heterosexual women. Heterosexual men do not respond to such pheremones.

Your attractions are controlled by your body. Your "mental feelings" are controlled by your brain (ie. your body).


See, that's assuming the homosexual is biologically different from the heterosexual, which is absolute nonsense.

No, it isn't. In fact, quite a few studies have demonstrated it.

Attraction is really more psychological a thing.

And psychology is controlled by biology.

I would move... but I don't use the bus so I would have no problem...
Thats only an option for people like you with no friends, family or career in their current location. The rest of us have to have the will to be the positive change we wish to see.

...You've lost me. How is the body of a homosexual different from that of a heterosexual? It's a mental feeling to be attracted to someone of the same sex, your body doesn't tell you to be.
Well, there is a correlation between the size of the hypothalamus and what sex one is sexually attracted to.

I would move... but I don't use the bus so I would have no problem...

Yes, I'm sure you would. You'd be perfectly alright with the rest of the population deciding that you were a subhuman, undeserving of the rights afforded to all other human beings.

So, it was perfectly alright when blacks were delineated as slaves in the Southern USA? After all, if they didn't like it, they should have just moved. It was perfectly alright for them to be sent to substandard, segregated schools? After all, if they didn't like it, they should have just moved. :rolleyes:


Meanwhile, I'll take the fact that you dropped the entire rest of that post as evidence that you can make no response to it.


Edit: Members of this thread, let's take a vote: Shoudl Setian-Sebeceans be allowed to reply to this thread?

yes and yes, of course. no debate.

The only way for the planet to be able to support another several billion people is for the current population to be negative. The carrying capacity (the population that can be sustained indefinitely) for humans is approximately 1 billion individuals.

According to what, exactly?

...You've lost me. How is the body of a homosexual different from that of a heterosexual? It's a mental feeling to be attracted to someone of the same sex, your body doesn't tell you to be.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. From a study published in 2006, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. (link (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/21/8269?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=lesbian+brains&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT))

The progesterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. In previous positron emission tomography studies, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions primarily incorporating the sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound, and that homosexual men processed AND congruently with heterosexual women rather than heterosexual men. These observations indicate involvement of the anterior hypothalamus in physiological processes related to sexual orientation in humans. We expand the information on this issue in the present study by performing identical positron emission tomography experiments on 12 lesbian women. In contrast to heterosexual women, lesbian women processed AND stimuli by the olfactory networks and not the anterior hypothalamus. Furthermore, when smelling EST, they partly shared activation of the anterior hypothalamus with heterosexual men. These data support our previous results about differentiated processing of pheromone-like stimuli in humans and further strengthen the notion of a coupling between hypothalamic neuronal circuits and sexual preferences.

So it's like Dempublicents1 said, as far as physical attraction goes, homosexual men's brains work like heterosexual females and homosexual women's brains work like homosexual males.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. From a study published in 2006, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. (link (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/21/8269?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=lesbian+brains&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT))

I said absolutely nothing about it being a choice. I'm bisexual (not actively, though), and I know for certain it was no choice. I didn't sit there bored one day and go "Hm, I do believe I'll become attracted to men!"

I said absolutely nothing about it being a choice. I'm bisexual (not actively, though), and I know for certain it was no choice. I didn't sit there bored one day and go "Hm, I do believe I'll become attracted to men!"

You asked how the body of a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual -- I gave you an abstract from a study showing differences in brain chemistry.

You asked how the body of a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual -- I gave you an abstract from a study showing differences in brain chemistry.

Well you gave me the wording that "Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality." I was just agreeing, in my own jackass style.

(And yes, I am a total and complete jackass, I admit it and enjoy it.)

According to what, exactly?
Biomass. Ours manages to equal or outstrip many primary consumers, and since we're tertiary consumers, that's very bad. Eventually we will exhaust the available resources. We've artificially increased our carrying capacity via agriculture, but we're sapping all the nutrients out of the soil. At our current population, we could probably continue for several milennia, but that's really the blink of an eye.

Well you gave me the wording that "Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality." I was just agreeing, in my own jackass style.

(And yes, I am a total and complete jackass, I admit it and enjoy it.)

:-) And I'm very condescending. Not because I enjoy it, but because I can't stand to be obsequious. And there is no middle ground there.

I don't care if it's natural OR normal. Gay, straight or bi a human being is a human being and deserves the same rights and respect as any other human being, period.

Homosexuality is natural, but not normal.

Natural and normal aren't even the same thing.

Natural means occuring in nature. So homosexuality is natural.

Normal means a majority of the population practices it. So it is not normal.

Yes, I'm sure you would. You'd be perfectly alright with the rest of the population deciding that you were a subhuman, undeserving of the rights afforded to all other human beings.

So, it was perfectly alright when blacks were delineated as slaves in the Southern USA? After all, if they didn't like it, they should have just moved. It was perfectly alright for them to be sent to substandard, segregated schools? After all, if they didn't like it, they should have just moved. :rolleyes:


Meanwhile, I'll take the fact that you dropped the entire rest of that post as evidence that you can make no response to it.


Edit: Members of this thread, let's take a vote: Shoudl Setian-Sebeceans be allowed to reply to this thread?


Oh nonsense, why would anyone declare such herecy such as that Afroeurasian-Americans are subhumans... we are Superhuman [die Ubermensch]. But first of all to say that a popular vote over homosexual marrage would be along the lines of segregation is ridiculous, it is a red herring. Now, what I am saying is that I refuse to take a position one way or the other, I would rather have cities, counties, or states have a popular vote on the issue- and if it passes in a state, you would have that right aslong as you lived there or a simmiler state.

GAy people are gay.......

A thread about gay folks. I think I'm having deja-vu...

I actually think that gay people should have less rights than they currently have.......

Homosexuality occurs in nature, so it is natural. It is not common, so it is not normal. Denying equal rights to homosexuals would be like denying equal rights to left-handed people. Give it a rest.

But first of all to say that a popular vote over homosexual marrage would be along the lines of segregation is ridiculous, it is a red herring.

Not really. A large issue during segregation times was laws banning interracial marriage. Marriage, they said, was defined as between a man and a woman of the same race.

Banning the legal recognition of homosexual unions is logically no different from banning the recognition of interracial unions - and the arguments used against it are exactly the same.

Now, what I am saying is that I refuse to take a position one way or the other, I would rather have cities, counties, or states have a popular vote on the issue- and if it passes in a state, you would have that right aslong as you lived there or a simmiler state.

And this means that you are in favor of having the majority decide what rights the minority gets. It means that you rae in favor of allowing bigotry in the government (despite the rather clear fact that the 14th amendment - in the US anyways - would prevent such things). If you are in favor of allowing votes on the rights of homosexuals, there is no logical way you can say that we cannot vote on the rights of blacks, Jews, Asians, or "Afroeurasian-Americans".

If we can vote that homosexuals cannot receive equal protection under the law, then we can vote that any group we decide we don't particularly like this year can't get equal protection under the law.

It depends on your definition of normal if you want to know whether it's normal. I mean, it's not normal for most of the population, but for homosexuals, it is normal to be gay. But it's perfectly natural and they should have the same rights as straight couples.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, so it is natural. It is not common, so it is not normal. Denying equal rights to homosexuals would be like denying equal rights to left-handed people. Give it a rest.
lol, yeah, legislating against same sex marriage is like legislating against left handed scissors and can openers.

Homosexuality is present in nature: so it is natural.

Homosexuality has always been a trait of a ignificant minority, so it is normal. Just like being left-handed, or being red-haired, or any other human trait that is shared by a significant majority. If something is common enough, and has been present for a while, then it becomes part of "the norm" for human beings. Homosexuality fits those two criteria easily.

lol, yeah, legislating against same sex marriage is like legislating against left handed scissors and can openers.

Why should they get special scissors? They can use right-handed ones like everyone else! None of that unnatural left-handed stuff in my country!

That entirely depends on how you define normal or natural.

That entirely depends on how you define normal or natural.

Well, let's see:

Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : LEGITIMATE (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : ILLEGITIMATE <a natural child>
4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble... brother... ever most kind and natural -- Shakespeare>
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15 : of an off-white or beige color

The definitions that can possibly apply to this conversation are bolded. Homosexuality meets all of them.

Main Entry: 1nor·mal
Pronunciation: 'nor-m&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
1 : PERPENDICULAR; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : SANE
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal silver phosphate> c : not associated <normal molecules> d : having a straight-chain structure <normal pentane> <normal butyl alcohol>
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

#4 is definitely met. #3 depends on what "norm, rule, or principle" we are talking about. If it is defined by what occurs most often, then homosexuality would not be considered "normal".

Well, let's see:



The definitions that can possibly apply to this conversation are bolded. Homosexuality meets all of them.



#4 is definitely met. #3 depends on what "norm, rule, or principle" we are talking about. If it is defined by what occurs most often, then homosexuality would not be considered "normal".

Then again I would have to say "normal" cannot mean the characteristics of the majority because then nobody would be "normal" so then there's no point in using the word normal anyways so let's just go with #4...

Then again I would have to say "normal" cannot mean the characteristics of the majority because then nobody would be "normal" so then there's no point in using the word normal anyways so let's just go with #4...

You can be "normal" in that characteristic. Most people have ten fingers and ten toes. Because I have ten fingers and ten toes, I am "normal" in this respect. Someone who has 9 fingers, or 11 fingers, or 11 toes, or 12 toes, etc. is not "normal" in this respect.

If normal were to mean, "Having all majority characteristics and no minority characteristics", then no one would be normal. But as long as it is confined to the characteristic you are talking about, the definition can be useful.

The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.

-- Alfred Kinsey