Is homosexuality unnatural?

[VisualJae]

Is homosexuality unnatural?

Pretty sure this point has been beaten to death already. But it is perfectly natural as all sorts of animal species beyond homo sapiens can exhibit homosexual behavior. Hell, I own three male Oriental Fire-belly Toads. One of them constantly tries to mount the others.

It's just that homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the race. That's the only biological "issue" with it.

 

[Omicron]

No. Speaking of nature, of evolution no less, as if it has meaning and intent is just completely inaccurate. I think it's much more reasonable to think of homosexuality, to the extent that it's biologically caused, as a genetic accident. So many aspects of our bodies are genetic accidents in that they're not helpful to us one way or another. Furthermore, maybe 5% of the population is gay? Maybe if you stretch it 10%? Given enough resources, we humans can easily overpopulate no matter what barriers of reproduction there are. Apparently, according to the US Census Bureau, in 2014 47.6% of women between 15 and 44 have never had children. That's a much bigger section of the population that's non-reproducing so I think it's safe to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with population control.

RE: stable populations perhaps Omicron has something to say about this, but it's my understanding that wild animal populations tend to fluctuate wildly. I remember when I was learning about population ecology that populations tend to oscillate in response to threats and food supply.

Yeah, I'd love to expand on this. Could someone quote me or like this post so I won't forget? I'm about to go to bed.

But I agree with Kanzler, the population control theory has little evolutionary fundaments. It also gets deep into group selection vs gene-centered view of evolution, which is a very complicated subject on its own.

 

[Her]

it seems like a rather practical use of occam's razor to suggest that the primal urge for pleasure simply overruled the primal urge to reproduce for no other reason than the animals liking each other's buttholes, rather than species-wide attempts at population control

 

[Psychic]

I can see homosexuality being described as "unnatural" only because sexual reproduction requires both genders in order to produce offspring. Sexual drive, lust, desire, is meant to make a species want to reproduce. As such, two individuals of the same gender having sexual relations is "unnatural" in that sense. The fact that it does occur in other species too, does make the question more interesting, but considering that sex is a mechanism for reproduction, it could still be argued that it's not natural to engage in sexual activities if there's "nothing to gain from it". Then we're sort of rather starting to wonder about the definition of the word unnatural.

The notion of "sex is only for reproduction" is mostly propagated by religion. We've observed a good few animals that engage in sexual activity that doesn't lead to reproduction.

In terms of humans, people who are unable to procreate, such as infertile individuals, prepubescent and post-menopausal people, also have sex drives, and have sex. Sterilized people have sex. Additionally, opposite-gender couples have non-reproductive sex all the same - same-gender couples aren't the only ones who engage in oral sex or anal intercourse!

Thus, the assertion that "it's not natural to engage in non-reproductive sex" is quite false because we see it in both animals and in heterosexual humans. :)

Could someone quote me or like this post so I won't forget? I'm about to go to bed.

Mkay!

~Psychic

 

[moon]

You're missing the point, not all species are the same. It is natural for humans to have sexual desire. Only humans and dolphins (I think?) have sex only for pleasure.

and

The notion of "sex is only for reproduction" is mostly propagated by religion. We've observed a good few animals that engage in sexual activity that doesn't lead to reproduction.

In terms of humans, people who are unable to procreate, such as infertile individuals, prepubescent and post-menopausal people, also have sex drives, and have sex. Sterilized people have sex. Additionally, opposite-gender couples have non-reproductive sex all the same - same-gender couples aren't the only ones who engage in oral sex or anal intercourse!

Thus, the assertion that "it's not natural to engage in non-reproductive sex" is quite false because we see it in both animals and in heterosexual humans. :)

True, if you define "natural" as what is occurring in nature without human technological interference, homosexual sexual activity must be defined as natural according to many studies having observed this in other species too. What I mean when I describe how it could be called unnatural is basically this:

It's just that homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the race. That's the only biological "issue" with it.

The point I speak from, as a very unreligious scientist with a biology oriented view on these matters, is a possibly pessimistic one: our purpose in life, is to reproduce. To bring our genes and knowledge to the next generation, to constantly evolve. It's been happening for millions of years, if you believe in evolution I think it's fair to claim that reproduction is hugely necessary for the survival of a species. Even if we'd cure the death disease (nod to Razor Leaf's thread!) and lived forever, we'd have to replenish deaths by accidents, violence etc. then it can of course be argued that the purpose of our existence overall, is something more spiritual (:

Reproduction is so important that we have developed a veeeeery enjoyable way of doing it. So enjoyable that some species (humans and dolphins right?) do it even without meaning to make dem babies. The point, still, that sex as a phenomena most likely evolved to make reproduction more likely to happen. Hence, if you try to talk about "natural" as what is biologically meant to happen, homosexuality can be called unnatural.

But if you define "natural" as what actually occurs, it's hard to call it completely unnatural, indeed! Then you also can stretch out and question whether our technological advances are all "natural" as well, because we're part of nature and we made this, so... How can it be "unnatural" really? (;

 

[moon]

Sexual desire = Natural
Having sex because :seduce: = Natural

Meaning that it can't be seen as unnatural because two people are having relationships knowing that they won't reproduce but doing it for pleasure instead.

I think maybe you missed my point (: I'm saying it depends on what you define as natural. And that sexual desire exists because of reproduction being a very important thing. As such, two males having sex, for instance, can be called unnatural if you're drawing very sharp lines within biology. It is a way of viewing things, and an answer to the OP's question.

It can be called natural as well, if not for the fact that it occurs around us in nature as well, then maybe because homosexual individuals don't seem to go through any unnatural process in order to "become" homosexual - that's just how they are. And then that's natural for them! A person being born naturally a certain way certainly can't be called unnatural, can they? If we're talking about the individuals for a moment rather than actions.

 

[Light and Darkness Dragon]

Dear Princess Celestia,
Today I learned that love is something more precious than anything. Love is what fills our hearts with something that mere physical objects cannot. To have someone you may call your own, unconditionally and without hesitation, is the greatest gift anyone, human or pony, can have.
It is a plant, cultivated at the center of our hearts. It requires constant care, being sure not to neglect it, but at the same time, not to smother it with over-attention. In today's society, physical and sexual desires are given precedence over this cherished and sacred feeling. However, if we find the root of that feeling and embellish upon it, we find ourselves the recipient of a fruit that is more filling than any food in the world.
Here's hoping that you too have found someone who can give you these feelings I have now.
Your faithful student,
Twilight Sparkle

Source

 

[Killua]

You know I have some gay friends and they are not whatevet stereotype most people picture them like, we até all humana and we are diverse and that is when things get beautiful the diversity of ways to think is what makes this wourld have even if its a little of color

 

[Omicron]

Evolution hardly ever has a direct relationship with population control. Evolution has no purpose, it is simply a process. It has no way to know that homosexuality, in this example, could/should/will help the species in the long run. At least in the gene-centered view of evolution. This theory might hold some weight in group selection, but group selection as a whole is still a debatable topic in which biologists seem to disagree. The majority are not convinced that it is something that occurs.

A larger population is usually beneficial for the species until the point where members of the same species start competing for resources. When this happens, the whole community and then the ecosystem start to destabilize. This fluctuations usually occur naturally for some reason or another, last for a relatively short period and then the ecosystem starts to stabilize again. The constancy of an ecosystem measures how much it can remain unchanged, the resistance how much it can resist to perturbations, including population fluctuations, and the resiliency measures how long it takes an ecosystem to stabilize itself after a perturbation. This are the three main ways to measure ecological stability.

Populations fluctuate for various reasons, being food supply, as Kanzler said, the most important and common one. A particularly bad drought season will reduce the population of every species in the ecosystem, most importantly the carnivores, due to a reduced food supply. However the inverse also holds true, a particularly bountiful season could skyrocket the population of many species. This are obviously the most basic of examples. A particularly humid season could favor the growth of fungi, which in turn could hinder the growth of some plants. This could have many possible ramifications, a reduction in the population of said plants and their consumers and the proliferation of another species of plants and the animals that consume it, for example.

The metapopulation is a group of connected populations in a region. immigration and emigration is common between these populations and it's not uncommon that because of the destabilization, some of these regional populations goes extinct. The population dies or emigrates in that particular region because of the destabilization of the ecosystem and members of the metapopulation immigrate there once the ecosystem stabilizes itself.

If the metapopulation of one of these species is threatened, then the species can become extinct in the region, which in turn would drastically change all of the ecosystems permanently.

This video shows brilliantly how a species disappearing, or rather a species returning after disappearing, changes the ecosystem and stabilizes the animal populations.

Spoiler:

Malthus' exponential law of population growth helps predict how populations will behave when no external influence is presented to the ecosystem. From this and other laws, many mathematical models have been created to analyze and predict how populations will react in different circumstances accounting for many different variables.

Even with so many different variables, I don't think homosexuality is prominent enough to make a significant impact on animal populations.

 

[Jetfire]

Good lord. I think we should all acknowledge our beliefs and thoughts, regardless if you agree with it or not. No one is going to be able to change someone's opinion here. But, great debate.

But to answer your question, no it is not unnatural.

 

[curiousnathan]

But to answer your question, no it is not unnatural.

Why?

 

[Keiran]

I think maybe you missed my point (: I'm saying it depends on what you define as natural. And that sexual desire exists because of reproduction being a very important thing. As such, two males having sex, for instance, can be called unnatural if you're drawing very sharp lines within biology. It is a way of viewing things, and an answer to the OP's question.

It can be called natural as well, if not for the fact that it occurs around us in nature as well, then maybe because homosexual individuals don't seem to go through any unnatural process in order to "become" homosexual - that's just how they are. And then that's natural for them! A person being born naturally a certain way certainly can't be called unnatural, can they? If we're talking about the individuals for a moment rather than actions.

But the fact still stands that it doesn't matter what the purpose of sex is, or what sexual desire exists because of. Homosexuality still occurs naturally. Something doesn't need a biologically advantageous purpose to occur naturally.

 

[Jetfire]

Why?

I believe it's because we're given the freedom the choose.

 

[gimmepie]

I believe it's because we're given the freedom the choose.

That makes no sense at all. You don't choose your sexuality. Nobody chooses who they're attracted to.

 

[Jetfire]

That makes no sense at all. You don't choose your sexuality. Nobody chooses who they're attracted to.

Listen, I'm not a scholar on the subject nor I'm going to pretend to be. I respect each and everyone's decisions and I will never question them. It's their life and it's their right to live it however they please.

 

[gimmepie]

Listen, I'm not a scholar on the subject nor I'm going to pretend to be. I respect each and everyone's decisions and I will never question them. It's their life and it's their right to live it however they please.

You're missing my point. It's 100% great that you're not going to judge people on their sexuality, but why on Earth are you referring to it as a choice? And more importantly, if its a choice, how does that make it natural?

What you're saying doesn't add up.

 

[Jetfire]

You're missing my point. It's 100% great that you're not going to judge people on their sexuality, but why on Earth are you referring to it as a choice? And more importantly, if its a choice, how does that make it natural?

What you're saying doesn't add up.

Well dude, I apologize that it doesn't add up for you. I'm not going to dive into a topic that I'm not fully knowledgeable about. I'm not here to disrespect anyone. I answered the question with my opinion (whether it may be right or wrong) and I'll leave it at that.

 

[curiousnathan]

It feels like a mental illness to me. The bible says it's wrong and the body parts don't fit like a man or a women. I believe it should be legal (despite me being grossed out) to be gay overall but marriage should stay banned. If not just don't have it inside a church where you are flat out going against the bible.
I feel like being transgender is slightly more okay despite God making you other wise.

Why is it gross to be gay? Is it because homosexuals partake in anal sex? Because if that's so, then heterosexuality could be viewed equally as disgusting. After all, men and women partake in anal sex too.

I'm also really interested as to why you think it's a mental condition. Mental illnness is defined generally as "a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour and thinking." Do you believe homosexuality is a mental illness based on the fact that it goes against the views of the bible (which in itself has been argued against by Morkula)?

 

[Aurora]

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It is practiced by many other beasts that roam the Earth, such as the mallard, chinstrap penguin, domestic dog, American bison, and the bonobo. The biggest reason why we consider homosexuality 'unnatural' is due to the inherent aversion to difference that we possess, which, in times of no scientific enlightenment, led people to believe that homosexuality is a Satanic choice.

Furthermore, homosexuality is not recognised by science as a deviant behaviour. On the contrary, the consensus is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural sexual behaviour which is characterised by 'little or no sense of choice'. This article by the APA, among other things, clearly states that:

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.

I'm not going to defend being transgender because I have zero interest in defending my own identity. Sick of it.

 

[Keiran]

Listen, I'm not a scholar on the subject nor I'm going to pretend to be. I respect each and everyone's decisions and I will never question them. It's their life and it's their right to live it however they please.

When did you choose to be whatever you are?