Is homosexuality unnatural?

[curiousnathan]

Is homosexuality unnatural?

 

[Psychic]

Define "unnatural."

Thus far, we have observed homosexual activity in 1500 other animal species. So going by the Merriam-Websiter definition of "natural," which is "existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature," then no, homosexuality is not unnatural.

To me, though, the more important question is "does it matter, and why?"

~Psychic

 

[Palamon]

Why the hell should it matter? That's disgusting to even think about. We're already hated enough for not being "socially acceptable," or something, and now it's "unnatural"? I don't think so. These are just homphobic subjects pressed on people.

 

[sirboulevard]

Why the hell should it matter? That's disgusting to even think about. We're already hated enough for not being "socially acceptable," or something, and now it's "unnatural"? I don't think so. These are just homphobic subjects pressed on people.

This, a hundred times this. As Psychic already said, we've documented homosexuality in other animals. Therefore it exists in nature. The love I feel for my boyfriend is the same love I've felt towards prior female partners. It came naturally through my emotions. Its natural and I really despise this baiting type of title.

Besides, Coca-Cola is unnatural and nobody is getting up in arms about it like homophobes do.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

One of my online friends, who was against the legalization of gay marriage last year, provided me this source as to why homosexuality isn't considered natural and instead by choice, despite telling him that homosexuality occurs in other animals: https://genderwholeness.com/lds/understanding/what-causes-male-homosexuality/

 

[Ivysaur]

Besides, Coca-Cola is unnatural and nobody is getting up in arms about it like homophobes do.

Amen.

One of my online friends, who was against the legalization of gay marriage last year, provided me this source as to why homosexuality isn't considered natural and instead by choice, despite telling him that homosexuality occurs in other animals: https://genderwholeness.com/lds/understanding/what-causes-male-homosexuality/

Of course, and this is the fun part, there are reasons why homosexuality can develop over time, the same way you can develop a taste for vegetables or a hatred for some kinds of music depending on your life experiences. But, and this is the thing, that doesn't mean there are the only causes, nor does it explain how early "homosexual tendencies" happen. Incidentally, the problem is not that someone "became" homosexual over time, but rather the idea that there is anything wrong with that and can or needs to be fixed. Like yeah, I can be conditioned to be able to drive cars and enjoy doing it. Or coca-cola, which, as sirboulevard said, doesn't happen in nature. Is that bad? Does that need to be fixed?

 

[sirboulevard]

Of course, and this is the fun part, there are reasons why homosexuality can develop over time, the same way you can develop a taste for vegetables or a hatred for some kinds of music depending on your life experiences. But, and this is the thing, that doesn't mean there are the only causes, nor does it explain how early "homosexual tendencies" happen. Incidentally, the problem is not that someone "became" homosexual over time, but rather the idea that there is anything wrong with that and can or needs to be fixed. Like yeah, I can be conditioned to be able to drive cars and enjoy doing it. Or coca-cola, which, as sirboulevard said, doesn't happen in nature. Is that bad? Does that need to be fixed?

See the difference between Homosexuality and Coca-Cola is that Coca-Cola has scientifically proven negative health effects like rotting your teeth and weight gain. Homosexuality just ensures homosexuals have sex and a loving partner (usually), which is pretty healthy.

 

[Neil Peart]

Whenever someone makes the "unnatural" argument against homosexuality, I want to go ballistic. I really do. It's such a stupid notion that's been categorically debunked by people with brains and humanity.

 

[Esper]

It's interesting to see the "it's natural" / "its' unnatural" argument come up in any discussion. I think it can really tell you a lot about the people who use it, about what they consider natural and unnatural. The idea that natural things are inherently better is kinda interesting, though not something I personally believe most of the time. (I think we all fall into this trap with one thing or another.) Like, it gets to some basic belief that people are somehow inherently corrupting of nature/the natural order. You can see it in some religious people, but also in some environmentally minded people.

Besides, Coca-Cola is unnatural and nobody is getting up in arms about it like homophobes do.

brb making a new thread about the dangers of sugary carbonated beverages

 

[Kanzler]

I think homosexuality is doubtlessly natural if you consider the many examples of individuals in species that are capable of possessing a same-sex orientation. And this is behaviour that exists outside of a complex human society.

But for that very reason, human behaviour isn't comparable with animal behaviour. Homosexuality in humans is probably to some extent socially constructed in the same way that all human sexuality is socially constructed. I don't think biological inevitability is a sufficient explanation for how homosexuality exists in society.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

Yes. That's it. That simple. It's been explained already, and it shouldn't HAVE to be. It's common logic.

 

[Arylett Charnoa]

If something exists, then it is natural.

Humans like to think of them as these strange, special creatures that defy the laws of nature. But humans were created from nature, and everything they do is natural. Just because they are different, doesn't make them unnatural. They create technologies, use languages and words because they were naturally born with these capabilities. It's just a specific subsection of nature that applies to our species. Everything that exists is created from nature. There is no such thing as "unnatural."

People like to use a lot of words to justify why they think particular things are evil, and disguise the fact that they don't have a reason beyond simply not liking them on principle. Things being "natural" is one such way to cloud your true feelings. Natural is neither inherently good or bad. It just is.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

Despite of what the truth is, not many people thinks as you do. That's why it's called a debate, this isn't papernews.

My point is, this SHOULDN'T be a debate. This shouldn't be a debate any more than "Should we treat black people differently?" should be a debate. It's a stupid question.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

As horrible as both those things are, I'm extremely open-minded when it comes to these things. If history has taught us something is that we've made terrible mistakes over the course of history. Not long ago, two entire nations thought they were doing the right thing, and probably regret what they did (or not). The point is, everything can be debated; it is extremely rude of you to be so blunt about it. If this thread somehow offended you and you have nothing to contribute, you should just ignore it. Your word is not the law, and you don't know the motives behind the question that Nathan asked.

Yes, everything can be debated. That doesn't mean it should. It's not offensive as I don't have a personal relationship to it, it's just a stupid question. I'm curious to see if you would respond in the same way you're responding here to someone who were to ask "Should we kill everyone that has black skin?"

I know it's different, but I'm giving you an example of things that are stupid questions and shouldn't be debated.

Not only that, but this "debate" has happened many times now. What is the reason for it this time?

 

[Gilles de Rais]

Of course it's unnatural. Have you ever heard of two men creating a baby through nothing more than biology? How about two women? Just because a pattern exists in nature doesn't mean that's how things are supposed to be. Murder also exists in nature, and yet we as a species seem to universally be against that.

First, I should mention that calling anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong in any way a "homophobe" is not only extremely rude but also the wrong term. I, for one, do not fear homosexuals or homosexuality in any way, but I still consider it to be what it is: unnatural and wrong. If you're going to debate something, you should at least be open to discussing it civilly with those, like me, who believe it should be stamped out.

Second, one's worldview (basic presuppositions that are necessary to interpret and interact with reality) will be a huge factor in what you believe about homosexuality, as well as many, many other things. Please bear that in mind.

Finally, when debating something like this, you have to be sure to separate love and lust. Homosexuality in all of its forms is born of love of self and lust. Real love means doing what's best for others, and homosexuality goes against that. One piece of evidence for this is the fact that the practice of homosexuality includes leading your partner toward suicide, feeding your partner poop, and making your partner die faster.

It is interesting that all of the evidence points to homosexuality being bad, and yet people advocate for it with the same religious zeal as ISIS suicide bombers. Therefore, questioning the intellectual grade of the question is not only allowed, but required. After all, isn't believing 1+1=7 just as stupid as condoning the abuse of someone whom you claim to love?

 

[Elysieum]

It should be acknowledged that when bigots say that homosexuality is unnatural, they are hardly referring to the natural world. You can give them countless examples of it occurring in other species, but that is not the kernel of what they mean. There is a problem in perspective; to them, it is unnatural to their world view, their own lifestyle. Introducing animals is perhaps not such a robust argument when you want to get someone (who is probably already quite ignorant) to understand homosexuality.

 

[Kanzler]

I know a couple of homosexual men who are not promiscuous, have no history of mental illness, nor feed each other poop (?), nor have lead anybody to suicide. Most of them are actually quite conservative, but that's just a product of our social environment. Why all these things are somehow necessarily linked or required of homosexuality is beyond me. It's really much simpler than that - homosexuality is when your feelings and acts of love and attraction are oriented to the same instead of the opposite sex. It may be possible that they are at the same time homosexual but are not living the homosexual lifestyle as you've described, but that just seems self-contradictory.

And last I heard, gay people commit suicide not because the demonic possessions of anal sex drove them to do so, but because of the stigma and ridicule they face in their social life.

 

[Elysieum]

For the possibility that you are not a troll -

Of course it's unnatural. Have you ever heard of two men creating a baby through nothing more than biology? How about two women? Just because a pattern exists in nature doesn't mean that's how things are supposed to be. Murder also exists in nature, and yet we as a species seem to universally be against that.

Why is creating a baby your sole measurement? Many people have zero interest in creating offspring. I suppose you disregard them altogether.

If you're going to debate something, you should at least be open to discussing it civilly with those, like me, who believe it should be stamped out.

You believe it should be stamped out, yet you demand civility in return?

Magnificent arrogance.

Finally, when debating something like this, you have to be sure to separate love and lust. Homosexuality in all of its forms is born of love of self and lust. Real love means doing what's best for others, and homosexuality goes against that. One piece of evidence for this is the fact that the practice of homosexuality includes leading your partner toward suicide, feeding your partner poop, and making your partner die faster.

Venom of this kind only reveals that you probably have not had a close or meaningful conversation with a gay person. Your words tell me you do not view homosexuals as actual people. You've convinced yourself (or allowed yourself to be convinced) that homosexuality in all of its forms is born of love of self and lust, which has the stench of that smug certainty only bigots can muster when they talk about something they either do not understand, or more probably in your case I think, fear.

It is interesting that all of the evidence points to homosexuality being bad, and yet people advocate for it with the same religious zeal as ISIS suicide bombers.

Cop out. Transferring the level of advocacy in terrorism to homosexuality only shows your own malice, nothing else.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

For the possibility that you are not a troll -

Why is creating a baby your sole measurement? Many people have zero interest in creating offspring. I suppose you disregard them altogether.

You believe it should be stamped out, yet you demand civility in return?

Magnificent arrogance.

Venom of this kind only reveals that you probably have not had a close or meaningful conversation with a gay person. Your words tell me you do not view homosexuals as actual people. You've convinced yourself (or allowed yourself to be convinced) that homosexuality in all of its forms is born of love of self and lust, which has the stench of that smug certainty only bigots can muster when they talk about something they either do not understand, or more probably in your case I think, fear.

Cop out. Transferring the level of advocacy in terrorism to homosexuality only shows your own malice, nothing else.

Oh my, somebody's sensitive. Did you forget that debates get heated at times, or are you genuinely attacking me? My vote's on the latter, mostly because it's all too common when one has an unpopular view. So...

First, check the links in my first post here. There are three of them. If you don't know where I'm getting my data, that should have been the first thing you did, and the second should have been doing your own research into those sources and their references. Second, Galileo was considered arrogant by the scientific community of his time, and yet later it was proven that he was right, so I don't think I care if you consider me arrogant. Third, you claim that homosexuality has less to do with selfishness and more to do with love, and yet the LGBT community has done nothing but bully everyone else into accepting their way or else (for example, a certain bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian pair).

The only malicious one here is you, because you're closed-minded enough to claim I'm a bigot when you haven't done a lick of research on the subject in your entire life. If you had, then your only reason for attacking me in such a manner would be to silence me for speaking a truth you're terrified of: the fact that you advocate evil. Be thankful I give you more credit than that, at least...for now.

 

[Ivysaur]

Yeah, this is about what I expected. Instead of actually looking at the argument and the evidence, you're quick to call me a bigot/extremist and dismiss everything I had to say out of hand. You don't bother with your own research, and you refuse to admit that you quite probably are wrong. I, at least, started my research with an open mind to find out where the truth led me. Thank you for proving that debates like this aren't worth my time, because they aren't actually debates; they're just a bunch of very misguided people getting together to reaffirm their misguidedness. Have a nice day.

Good lord the hypocrisy is so bad I might choke. "You refuse to admit you are quite probably wrong". Because you decided so? Okay. Sure!

"I, at least, started my research with an open mind to find out where the truth led me." I have teh feeling you started the research with a closed mind. Your initial question was not "so what's up with homosexuality? any ideas?" but rather "Homosexuality is bad. Any evidence I can use it to reinforce my beliefs?".

Anyway, I must assume that lesbians feed each other poop and drive their partners to suicide? Or is that only applicable to men who do anal, which is apparently the root of all evil in the world? And what if you are facing two asexual gays? I honestly don't know what is so wrong with two people loving each other to decide that it's fundamental to society that we go out there and ban them from loving each other. Do you hate love? Do you hate heterosexuals who decide not to have babies? Would you force every couple to have a baby or else?