Is homosexuality a natural thing?

/thread.

Well, I'm not sure if I'm directly replying properly, but my comment is directed to Hoolahoopman

"Toasters are purely man-made constructs" 1) I never attempted to state otherwise, I think you should read my post more carefully, you seem to have gotten the wrong idea/missed the point. 2) I referenced taxonomy of hermaphrodites not on the basis of linking that with homosexuality, but just as a demonstration of the diversity of nature in general, hence "Anything is possible." If you can show me any sliver of hard, non-circumstantial evidence in my post that is contrary to either of the two points of my rebuttal, I would be greatly impressed, as that would make you either a moderator, or a magician. Also, you should calm down, it's just the internet. No need to feel "embarrassed" for me.. which clearly you didn't, for if you did, you wouldn't have been so predatory in the first place. You should take your high-school, girls locker room bullying tactics to the material world, instead of just acting like you deal the cards behind a screen.

I don't believe it's natural, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Being born with a sixth finger isn't natural, but that doesn't make you any less of a person.

I am fairly certain that homosexuality is a natural occurance, I know for certain that the morals that are the Foundation of this conversation is a social construct and wholly unnatural. Go figure.

I believe homosexuality to be a natural occurrence and the reason I believe this is because love is natural. I see sexually akin to handedness; some people are left handed and some people are right handed, ergo, some people are gay and some people are straight. I do not believe in environmental predispositions. If gay people or straight people find someone in this world to spend their life with, more power to them. Who are we to question it? Their relationship has nothing to do with me and has no bearing on me and my life, nor should it yours.

Blacks have a higher rate of HIV contraction than any other race, especially young, black, homosexual men. However, with regards to transmission categories, homosexuals are by far in the lead. Why? Promiscuity with no contraceptive, injection drug use, or any combination of the two are usually the likely culprits. Additionally, keep in mind that HIV contraction can happen in more than sex. Here are the statistics that the CDC uses.

Lastly, to the TC, the only safe sex is no sex. Straight couples who do not use condoms are just as susceptible to HIV as a gay couple who fail to use condoms. You question the normality of homosexuality? Why? Because of anal sex? I do believe that straight couples are completely capable of partaking in the same kind of sex. Additionally, are you so naive to believe that people aren't gay but continue to lead straight lives? Is that so difficult to comprehend?

I believe what ever people do with their bodies is their thing, and they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't inflict anyone else. So if they want to be gay, then all the power to them. It's not wrong if it makes them happy

But I believe it is completely nurture, and not nature. You're not born gay, it develops based on how you were raised and influence. Combined with experience with the opposite sex, either bad experience, boring experience or too many rejections.

Of course being born with a sixth finger is natural...just not common.

Yea that's a common misconception regarding the workings of the historical movement and the progression of human civilization in general. Its overly simplistic or "flat" and too assuming to expect the current moral and intellectual status quo to just continue being perpetuated with proliferating prevalence. Who's not to say that 100 year from now, people will be looking back in time and saying "I can't believe people used to bugger themselves lol".

Human civilization and history are both far more nonlinear than that.

Fair enough.

On a slightly different note, if everything that happens in nature is natural, then what qualifies unnatural exactly, seeing how everything conceivable by human beings happens in nature. A more accurate and meaningful definition of natural would be something that happens in agreement with nature and what statistically prevails with no "tertium quid" involved.

From a strict logic perspective, here you go:

Humans are part of the natural world and homosexuality occurs in humans, hence homosexuality is a natural phenomena. Homosexuality is also not a society or cultural construct either. You'll find homosexuality in even the most oppressive societies, though the individuals will be much more clandestine in their sexual orientation in those societies.

It is a natural thing, unfortunately stupidity, bigotry, fear, ignorance and hypocrisy are also natural things, which mean that people can't understand that homosexuality is a natural thing.

"Predispositional vulnerability together with stress from life experiences"


This one line can be used to sum up the whole diathesis-theory. I'm talking about what happens before the 'stimulus' provided by the society. This genetic tendency is just as 'natural' as any other tendency. If one person has it in his genes that he's prone to depression, would he be a depressed person since birth? of course not. It's what happens in his life and how the society treats him that makes him depressed. Same goes with homosexuality. By default, it is there but it's in a 'turned off' state. Once it activates, unlike depression and any other mental disorder or emotional behavior, this can't be turned back. That's the only thing that differentiates it from all those generalizations that I've made about it. In other words, it's something you can stop, but once it's done, you can't. But the question rises, why should we even stop it in the first place?

Here's why.

Where does homosexuality grow? In societies where promiscuous behavior is common. When you expose little children to concepts of sex and everything at such an early age. They're bound to be prone to homosexuality. Why is homosexuality even a threat? like I already said, if they keep growing and one day they occupy the majority, remember that they cannot turn back from their homosexuality. We'll face a serious threat of under-population. Now you'll present the argument that heterosexuals tend to not reproduce every time as well. Of course they don't, but do they have the tendency to NEVER ever reproduce? no. Whenever the need arises, they can and they will. Yes there are people who don't reproduce their whole lives but, even then that still doesn't justify that we should just let homosexuality grow on it's own.

I think I've made it very clear that how they can be a 'potential' threat to the nature.

Onto the next thing. It's not the minority that would just retain it's numbers and stay there. It's contagious. Or if that word offends you, then I should rather say, they'll spread. Once they're common in the society, people that are more prone to this will get attracted just like you said. Have you ever wondered why there are places in this world where homosexuality is almost non-existent? it's because the concept of homosexuality doesn't even exist at basic levels of those societies. I'll take my example here, I didn't even know that such a thing existed until I was exposed to the internet a few years ago. That should direct you to the notion that I'm going to make; I have never seen a homosexual in my entire life. It's just the concept of theft doesn't exist in a society and that society tries it's best to not let anyone be exposed to it. Ultimately, that society will be free of any thieves. But that perfection doesn't exist in real life. Of course there are homosexuals where I live too. But they are among those people of the society that are neglected, totally frustrated or in other words, they're the 'underground' people. In normal society, they don't exist.

To seriously believe that they do no harm to the society, you must confirm that they're totally isolated from the norm. Now that must have offended you. They don't do any apparent harm, they're 'potentially' a harm to the whole ecosystem.

That Western sexual culture of yours isn't as perfect as you make it out to be. In fact, sexual culture everywhere in this world is NOT perfect. Western sexual culture tends to be a bit too promiscuous as to make sex just as casual as any other thing which in result produces harmful results that you already know. Contraceptives do nothing when the social structure itself doesn't put any restrictions over anything. Teenage pregnancy, unwanted child births, teenage suicides, sexual harassment and stuff like that should be known to you. Whereas the western sexual culture removes all barriers and let everything flow out life a flood, the Eastern culture represses the sexual needs of a person. In both cases, the end result is harmful. I know the perfect system but this is not the place to discuss that. We'll have some thread about that sometime later.

Of course homosexuals are humans too. They can do the same moral acts as others can. They shouldn't be oppressed for something they hold no responsibility. Because it's their environment that changed them into what they are. But ultimately, they become the part of that society and are conducive to producing more homosexuals. What I'm trying to point out here is, improve the social structure so that there won't be anymore homosexuals. I didn't mean to offend gays by this thread as people have misunderstood. It should be obvious by now.

I don't know about the fetus thing neither it's popular enough for me to accept it. But I never said masturbation isn't natural. Masturbation is natural when sexually deprived individuals eventually resort to it. What I tried to convey from that comparison is that, whereas sex involves all kinds of sensations, masturbation only involves the use of your genitals and your imagination. Which in turn, is stressful on the psychological status of some individuals. Resulting in a feeling of loneliness, depression and an overall 'unfocused' state of mind. I think I've made it easier to figure.

@i_return: you are a idiot.

@Videodogg: Call me something new. Something refreshing.

I feel like I am now dumber for having read I_Returns post...

I'm in the "Don't really care either way" camp. If its something you enjoy and makes you happy, have fun as long as you're not doing barbaric things in the name of homosexuality, or at all for that matter....

It still amazes me that this still is a thing.

Then again, people still believe the Earth is flat, so I guess there is no limit to stupidity.

I think homosexuality is some what natural. It's natures way to keep a species from growing to big, but it isn't really working =P However, what separates humans from animals is that we have free will. Everything in life is a choice. You don't have to have sex with anyone, you choose too. There are men who have sex with other men because they do not get along with women, and the need to have sex with something is very high. In every gay and lesbian couple, there is always one that could go either way, and one that is truly gay. Top gay guys, can have sex with females, and will if they can, but bottoms are the true gay guys, but there are also strait men who enjoy anal sex, and may let a guy screw them simply for the experience of having something up their rear end. Same thing with lesbain couples, there is always a butch gay girl, with a fem gay girl who is bi.

My girlfriend used to date another girl for along time, but she said she missed being with a man.

@eyematter: I thought you were 33 yo virgin who never even heads hands with a girl lol

How is being born with a sixth finger unnatural?

What makes you humans are unique in Free Will? Sometimes my cat comes to me when called, sometimes she does not. Is that not free will?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11998687

@bforrester420:

Well, some animals have stronger free will than others. I was speaking in a general sense. No need to be superficial.

As a child one of my favorite games was skin the cat.

Well, when I think of unnatural, I think of things going against nature's design. Perfect specimens have 10 fingers, 10 toes, heterosexual, working lungs, cancer free, things like that. Maybe abnormal is the better term.

Not being superficial, just providing a simple example of an animal, of lesser intelligence than many other animals (think dolphins and great ape species), exhibiting what we would consider free will. If cats are capable, I would posit that even more complex forms free will is definitely not unique to humans.

I have no doubt it's not a choice.

I am a man, but I never chose to like woman, I just do. It's not learned behavior. Why would anyone choose to be gay? If you look at all the crap they have to deal with (the high rates of depression, suicide, discrimination, etc.), do you honestly think someone just decides to be gay for the hell of it? It's how they were born and is natural. You dont choose to be gay any more than you choose to be left handed.

That's not entirely true. The risk of transmission of certain types of STDs does vary according to the category of sex. Men who have sex with other men have a higher risk per episode than men who have sex with women, vice versa, or women who have sex with other women. Women are at higher risk to contract an STD from a man, than a man is to contract an STD from a woman. Again, this is per episode and does not account for promiscuity, etc. Obviously the use of certain types of protection - such as condomns - can decrease the risk for any category. STDs are generally caused by bacteria and viruses, and often times these require a breakdown in the normal barriers your body has against infection. Certain types of intercourse are higher risk than others.

This doesn't mean that one type is more natural, moral, etc. It's just wise to be aware of the differences so one can take the proper precautions. For example, Healthcare workers are at much higher risk to contract many diseases than other people, but that doesnt mean that healthcare workers are bad people or unnatural.

Of course it's not a choice. It's a tendency that exists in every human and then it's up to the environment and the upbringing of an individual.

Since humans are part of nature, then yes it's natural.

It being natural doesn't make it either bad or good though.

The whole natural argument has always been moot and meaningless as far as I am concerned.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm, troll bait, or you honestly feel that way.

It's not a tendency that exists in every person. It's a drive that exists in some people. And it's not due to the upbringing of an individual because that would denote that there is a choice. It's a biologic drive just like hunger, thirst, etc.

It's not a biological drive. It is in the genes. Just like every other emotional tendency. All it needs is a stimulus which is provided by the society or the environment. After that, it becomes a biological drive.

@bforrester420: judging from pretty much all his other posts.. Troll bait.

What design? The very basis of life and evolution is change and mutation. Animals didn't just start with the "perfect" number of digits on their hands/feet.My point I'm trying to make here is that you can't say anything in nature is "unnatural" which points to the uselessness of the argument surrounding homosexuality. It's merely a way for conservatives and religious nutjobs to justify their beliefs that somehow, homosexuals don't have equal rights.

This is one of the strangest non sequitor arguments i've ever heard. "when you expose children to sex at such an early age, they're bound to be prone to homosexuality?" No, they are bound to explore their sexuality and they'll end up figuring out if they have hetero-, bi-, or homosexual tendencies.

"if they keep growing?" Thats a weird statement to make because even in the most sexually liberal places (San Francisco or Rio de Janeiro), the LGBT population has pretty much plateaud at about 12% - 14% compared to the national average of many different countries of 2% - 6%. By evidence, at the highest, they'd grow to San Francisco-like levels. I wouldn't worry about their growth.

"remember they cannot turn back from their homosexuality." Wait, along with the "if they keep growing" claim, are you seriously making the argument that homsexuals can turn children gay but they cannot be be turned once they are gay? So you can be turned gay, but you cannot be turned from being gay. You gotta pick one or the other: Either homosexuality is a choice to and fro, or its innate and cannot be changed. But im guessing committing to either of the only two sensible view points would be devastating to your argument so you wont.

No, if the crux of your argument is that this is why homosexuality is a threat, you haven't made anything clear at all. In fact, im more confused than when i started reading this thread because these arguments don't make sense.

Periods of time where homosexuality was deemed as more acceptable than today - think greek or roman antiquity - should certainly be evidence that a rise or acceptance of homosexuality was not a danger to a society. Those civilizations fell almost entirely from economic or military decisions stemming from an empire that grew too big to manage and not "because the gays."

Personally, I don't think you're born that way. I think sexual preference is like food preference. It changes over the years and some can be straight and later on be bi or something. And minor things might change too like racial preference... Or they might not. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Sexuality isn't black and white.

why argue about homosexuality being natural

like damn, if you wanna be natural go hunt/gather your food everyday.

The word 'explore' is merely sugar coating it. In reality, that's not a truth. When you guys don't even consider children to be potent enough that they can decide things for themselves then why are you so lenient when it comes to matters relating to sex? By default, every human is heterosexual. Once you leave them exposed to such things, then and only then will they discover their tendency to be a homo or a bi.

Notice the word 'if'. Since I don't have any in-depth knowledge about what goes in San Francisco or Rio de Janiero, I'll refrain from commenting. But even then, there's a possibility they'll grow since they can.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. Once you become a homosexual, no variation takes place in the genes. To simplify it, you discover the genes that potentially could make you a gay, and now you've turned them on. There's simply no going back. Have you ever seen a gay turning into a hetero? the facts speak for themselves. When trying to get into an argument, people should consider how to deal with the argument rather than the other debater.

Stating the obvious, it would hardly make any sense to you. Since this is a forum where the majority of the people belong to the West with a liberal state of mind, these arguments won't be anything except mere nonsense and the talks of an idiot to you. If the majority were of the Eastern people, you would see the tables turning. Then I would be winning and you'll be an idiot. See? difference of culture. So, rather than getting personal over matters like these, perceive it just as another internet debate.

Again the majority weren't of the homosexuals. Homosexuals are a danger to the society only if they become the majority. The only possible threat (apart from the moral threat but that won't make any sense to you so I would refrain) they pose is to cause under-population. As long as heterosexuals occupy the majority, their won't be any threat.

Are you seriously making the argument that becoming homosexual is like getting diabetes or something? No one's born with it but then too much sugar and you get diabetes that you can't turn off? Seriously?

I dont think theres a shred of empirical evidence to support your viewpoints.

I'm not making it up. It's all science. Go read up some facts yourself.

Well it depends on what you mean by 'natural'.

If natural means something that occurs in nature, then I think it's obvious that homosexuality is natural.

If natural means the right way of occurring in nature, something that is supposed to happen, then no, I don't think homosexuality is natural.

At the current state and quite possibly until the end of time, homosexuality poses no serious threat to the survival of the human species because there simply aren't that many. However, based on nature's tendency towards procreation, it wouldn't be a stretch to view homosexuality as an illness of the human condition for achieving that end. Illness is used very loosely since it doesn't have any negative impact on the individual's well-being aside from the social implications. Still, if we are honest with ourselves, we must accept things as what they are.

A thoughtful response. Too bad many people in this thread are actually flaming rather than thinking things the rational way.

Thanks. I feel that people get too caught up with trying to be politically correct in these situations. I get that it's a touchy topic but in a scientific discussion it's usually best to not let feelings get in the way.

I think we can all accept that homosexuality is as natural as Ebola, the Black Death and poor people. The question is whether the gay pathogen or "the gay", as it is now refereed to on social media platforms, is becoming contagious. If we look at the evidence, there does seem to be a growing trend of homosexual behaviour or frolicking with the same sex, if you will, particularly in developing areas.

0/10

Thank you for your feedback. Any improvements you would like to see?

Don't try to make it so obvious that you're trolling. You used to be a little better than this.