Is homosexuality a natural thing?

I wasn't even trolling you guys, though. It was sarcasm.

No it is not.

Seeing as this is a secular site these responses don't surprise me. I love homosexuals as fellow human beings, but I can't lie and say I think their behavior is good just so I don't hurt their feelings, because something more important is at stake. We do see animals occasionally humping the same sex but they also hump our legs and pretty much anything that moves. So does that mean inter-species sex is okay? Of course not. Animals also eat their young, rape and tear each other apart by the way.

Statistically the lifespan of a homosexual male is much lower than that of a heterosexual; Homosexuals are literally killing each other. Some homosexuals may say that their homosexuality is natural for them, maybe they have had these desires since they were young. In that case I say fair enough. Your homosexuality is natural for you but does that make it right or good? Greed, hatred and lying also come natural to human beings. Who is to say these are wrong or should not be followed? In the end It all comes down to is your worldview. If we're just animated dirt then it doesn't matter what desires we follow ultimately, because we're just dirt made by some ridiculous accident and we're all returning to it, but if there is a God and He has an opinion about the matter then it matters infinitely.

@i_return: You say you need proof but at the same time you make many ignorant points without any proof behind them.
"why is the risk of getting AIDs higher in homosexual relations" - It's NOT! That's a total lie! It's a myth that you seem to believe without any real proof.

If you do a real and unbiased search on the web of articles on the subject you'll easily find proof why homosexuality is NOT an illness in any way and that people don't choose to be that way.

And you should be more worried about the lack of love in our society. Because love and compassion, of any kind, are essential for our species to be able survive, and are also the most meaningful aspects of life.

@forkandplate: "Statistically the lifespan of a homosexual male is much lower than that of a heterosexual" - Do you have any real proof of that or it's just something you hear or just your ignorant opinion?

i remember once listening as my folks watched a televangelist and the guy going on and on about the seductive lure of gay sex and how you have to guard against it and that completely gives away the entire game.

i remember thinking "really?" "you have to guard against it?" "night and day?" "being ever vigilant that you don't somehow end up with a penis in your mouth?" "really?" "cuz that does not sound very interesting to me."

these people can't stop thinking about it and they believe everyone else around them is the same way.

combine that with the actual straight members of the church and how they want to believe they are holier than thou pillars of the community who choose not to have gay sex because they are so morally superior and you get what we see today.

people denying sexual orientation is biology because they all get something out of it.

you can always trace this shit right back to personal gain.

some get to justify their gay feelings by acting like everyone has it and can fall into gay cuz the debbil and others get to act like they are better than everyone else by not having any kind of gay orientation.

so what do we end up with?

anti gay politician crusaders and religious leaders who we catch one after another blowing strangers in public restrooms then hate themselves for it and persecute gay people in any way they can.

i wish you guys could just make peace with your gay feelings and have sex with men instead of using your pent up sexual frustration to persecute a minority of people born a certain way and that the rest of you were clever enough to realize if you don't have the desire for gay sex it's not because of how awesome you are but because you were not born gay.

It's an established fact that the risk of getting AIDs is higher in homosexuals. We've already discussed this subject in this thread. Please do read the posts before commenting.

People don't choose to be that way. This matter has already been discussed as well.

That's a different subject but I'm telling you anyway, either it's the Western Culture or the Eastern Culture, this matter will always remain unsolved.

Very good thread Ireturn. Again really digging animu avatar. my business partner GAMINGELITE021 is hardcore manly man SNIPER which you already know from yesterday.

Aint nothing like two grown men snuggling naked under the same blanket. Spread teh love

you have weird fetishes Ali...

@GazaAli: everything that happens in nature being natural is too broad of a definition for it to be of practical use in a nonbiological sense. So I just think that different context will give different meanings. Human intervention on nature being something that is deemed artificial. So using a human vs the natural world is one context, using the perspective of humans.

From a biological standpoint, I don't really see why the statistical norm would be considered a definition of natural. Or why deviations would be seen to be unnatural. Why there would need to be a distinction of the two things as being natural vs unnatural. Normal and abnormal seem to be valid labels.

I think its men who have too much estrogen, and women who have too much testosterone. Simple as that, those 2 hormones lead to male and female behavior. So it's natural, just not normal.

@ps4hasnogames: That's not the case.

Because generally speaking, deviation away from something is convergence to its antithesis. That and the fact that the absence of something is necessarily the presence of its antithesis. When you establish that something is diverging away from what is natural then it necessarily follows that its converging to what is unnatural thus rendering it unnatural itself. And with regards to statistical prevalence within nature and its relevancy, it has to do with the fact that statistical prevalence is the outcome of an evolutionary process that conduced to what is advantageous and expedient to a species or any construct existing as an interactive part of nature, entailing greater capacity for adaptation and compatibility. Moreover, statistical prevalence in nature always has its existence justified through some biological function or benefit, or some environmental or ecological explanation. This is not to necessarily be used against statistical niches; but rather, this is to say that statistical prevalence is the norm and does not need to justify its presence in nature, and that it should not be held on the same level as what diverges from it. As such, deviation from statistical prevalence should be investigated and either justify its existence or be done away with in fear of compromising and potentially subverting what statistical prevalence came into possession of of desirable and expedient qualities and trends. Think of it as the American political system and how it was built, indicating that this is not an alien rationale like others would make you believe.

At any rate and away from the strictest sense of the word nature, I do agree that the dichotomy of normal vs abnormal can replace the one of natural vs unnatural, if it isn't a more accurate and meaningful one in such a context.

As a straight guy who doesn't know any openly gay people, I have no idea. I read an article ages ago that some (I think Dutch) Doctor had found that women with a higher level of a certain hormone or something in their bloodstream than the normal tended to have higher rates of gay children, so yeah, I have no idea. My gut instinct is that it's a defect, although when someone brought this subject up before somewhere, someone posted what I think is probably one of the most interesting theories on the subject. Namely, that homosexuality was nature's way of attempting to stop humans from overproducing (i.e. a counterbalance against overpopulation, and the horrible things that would come from that).

what is so ironic about the religious and gay is what hypocrites the religious are.

what would they have me do when i see another being oppressed?

pass by on the side of the road like some priest?

scurry away and leave him to rot for fear that the people that did this are still about like the levite?

refuse to help my brother for fear his sin could stain me like the pharisee?

by the tenants of your own silly religion you are tasked with assisting the downtrodden but can you do that?

no. because your are a terrible ignorant scumbag who is too stupid to even understand your own beliefs and what has been written in your own holy texts.

It's my earnest opinion that most of human activities are "unnatural" to the point that is it rather pointless to argue over what is and what isn't.

Still typing walls of text devoid of any real content I see. You seem to be using the term natural and normal interchangeably. Something can be sparse or minimal in presence, yet natural at the same time.

Your argument ultimately falls flat on its face by trying to view normal/natural as synonyms when they're clearly not.

Man if god was rational, he/she/it would be overjoyed with the fact that the most serious sin that is committed is homosexuality.. Alas it isn't.. If homosexuality fucks a persons eternity, then we are all fucked by taking part in the cultures and economies that have fucked people to death half way around the globe historically.. Our consumerism for instance has fueled genocides in which have been completely ignored.. Yet people are worried about two men kissing? This disconnect boggles the mind.

@i_return: I've been away from my computer for a couple days and haven't had a chance to reply, but I think this is an important conversation to have and I appreciate you providing such a thoughtful counterargument. My reply might be a little long so I'll try and break it up into chunks for clarity's sake:

1. There are many mental conditions which, once "turned on", can never go away. Among these are schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder; only the symptoms of these conditions can be treated. So if homosexuality were to be an irreversible condition, it would not be the only one as such... however homosexuality does not fall under the same classification as these conditions, nor any other irreversible condition. Homosexuality isn't even really classified as a condition, but as I explained earlier, rather as a type of behavior amongst the whole spectrum of human sexual behavior. One can engage in homosexual behavior during a certain period in their life, and then switch to heterosexual behavior, and vice versa. As an example, there are plenty of persons who experiment sexually throughout high-school and even more commonly during college, but who after having engaged in various homosexual behaviors end up turning exclusively to heterosexual behaviors for the rest of their lives. Hence sexuality as a spectrum, along which any individual may travel during the course of their life.
2. Homosexuality frequently occurs in nature, and is therefore as reasonably "natural" as any other aspect of sexuality in any animal known to science. Let's please put a rest to that argument, because the debate over "natural or unnatural" has at this point descended into mere semantics.
3. Societies where homosexuality is not discussed or is outright suppressed as a topic of discussion are societies where greater levels of sexual repression (and psychological issues arising from that repression) occur, because these same societies choose to suppress discussion of sexuality in general. A lower quality of life ensues.
4. World population levels are, for lack of a better term, skyrocketing. It is almost statistically impossible, barring some major worldwide catastrophe like plague, mass famine or nuclear war, that population growth could ever stagnate over the next half-century. Beyond that point, threats of drought and food shortage are likely to be real concerns; not population stagnation due to some homosexuality boom. Likewise, it is statistically inconceivable that homosexuality could overtake heterosexuality as the sexuality norm within the next century, beyond which point sexual reproduction as we know it might become irrelevant anyway due to sufficient scientific advances. But even if we were to imagine your proposed scenario where homosexuals become the majority, a serious threat of population halting is unlikely due to artificial insemination. In case you haven't noticed, there are tons of homosexual couples who are becoming parents by way of this miraculous technology!
5. Aside from your purely speculative argument about a homosexuality boom hurting population growth, you have presented no argument indicative of any other harmful effect of homosexuals on society; because the idea of homosexuality as contagious is likewise unfounded, with you having no statistical or scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is contagious in any way at all.
6. The solution to problems with Western sexual culture is drastically improved sex education. That simple. It is statistically proven that higher rates of sex education lead to fewer cases of STD transmission and fewer cases of unwanted pregnancy. Do away with abstinence only programs and teach developing adults about the realities and dangers of sex. Problem (mostly) solved.
7. You are completely off base on the masturbation thing. Scientific research has shown that masturbating at least once a week actually helps reduce symptoms of depression, as a by-product of health benefits from masturbation, and directly through the release of endorphins during masturbation.
8. Sexual exploration is an inherent biological impulse of children, adolescents, and adults. Psychology tells us that parents who strongly limit these impulses, outside of limitations for safety reasons, can actually cause children psychological harm and halt psychological development (e.g. constantly telling a child not to touch themselves is linked to issues with personal insecurity into adulthood).
9. Every human being is not, by default, heterosexual. By default, we are simply carriers of the whole array of sexual potentials, from homosexual to bisexual to heterosexual to pansexual to asexual to everything in between. Anyone can be anything.
10. Technically, homosexuality in an individual does affect the genes, just as the choice to smoke or constantly ride a dirt bike affects the genes. This is a very complicated scientific concept that would take a really long time to get into here, so I'll just suggest you look up epigenetics if you want to learn more about what I'm referring to. Needless to say, everything we do affects our genes.
11. A difference in culture doesn't mean much when discussing scientific and statistical facts. Just because there's a general sentiment in Eastern culture doesn't mean it's factually true. What is factually true is that repression of homosexuality in many Eastern cultures produces issues not only of individual sexual repression, but also of oftentimes flagrant human rights abuses. Homosexuals in much of the Eastern world are regarded as second class citizens who can, in many instances, be put to death or imprisoned for homosexual acts. If anyone is in the right from a basic ethical standpoint on this issue, I hate to say it, but it's the West.
12. There is no factually based or safety relevant issue for suppressing homosexuality. The only arguments against homosexuality are those based purely in opinion, with no support from scientific, statistical, or factual evidence of any kind. Proponents of any kind of suppression of homosexuality need to own up to this inevitable conclusion and stop trying to purport their arguments as anything other than mere conjecture.

If you have something of any value or substance to say, and if you have any real argument to contend mine with then by all means proceed. Otherwise spare me the yelling and the void scorn.

I tried to generalize it but, you've made a good point about people with dynamic sexual traits. Those are mostly people who engage in promiscuous behavior and mostly they occupy the category of biggest vectors of AIDs and other STDs. The homosexuals that I was talking about, were those people who tend to be homosexual since a very early age. Like, most of the homosexuals or permanent homosexuals that we see are those who become homosexuals right from the start of their puberty. Those homosexuals are the ones who find it difficult or impossible to switch their sexuality. On a basic level, we can say that they go through 'continuous variation'. The genes that determine their sexuality almost become exclusive to homosexuality. It's just like, they never felt what it is to be a heterosexual. So they're always reluctant. The people who change their sexuality due to 'reasons' that might as well be sexual frustrations or such are not a threat but I would consider them immoral nonetheless.

Yeah, it's just fallen down onto the differing definitions of 'natural' anyway so might as well give it a rest..

Let's just sum it up in one reply. I wouldn't call one sexual culture 'better' than the other. If anything, both cultures are a big failure in my eyes. Better sex education might 'improve' the numbers of STD patients and other oddities relating to sex. But, the most fundamental aspect of a sexual relation; that is love, would still be absent. In Western culture, the liberal attitude tends to make sex a casual interaction on a societal level. Thus, there's very little intimacy involved in their relations resulting in most relations becoming a failure or not as well as they were supposed to be. Yes it is certainly true that 'love' majorly depends on the individual, but the culture or the system has a significant impact as well.

In Eastern culture, the element of love is just on the same level as Western culture. Partly due to the sexual repression that they have to go through to abide by their culture, and partly due to the mentality of the people here, where in some societies, men really do consider them 'superiors' of women. Thus, the relation of a husband and wife is more like that of a slave and master rather true partners. Ultimately, the lack of sex education plays it's role in making conditions even worse.

To sum it up, no culture provides enough to fulfill the most basic need of a relationship. In Western culture, people turn homosexual because of the promiscuous behavior and in Eastern culture, people become homosexual due to sexual frustrations. The law quality of life can not be contributed to the oppression of homosexuality. It relates to the mere fact that I've stated above; sexual frustration combined with little to no sex education.

The Eastern culture treats homosexuals as second class citizen because in most Eastern societies, religion is the major part of law. But Easterners are a failure in a sense that whereas their religion opposes homosexuality, it (or most Eastern religions at least, mainly Islam) also provides a counter for that. But when it comes to that, they completely ignore that. Thus making them a society which is more archaic than even the dark ages.

Ultimately, both the systems are a failure. This is a whole another topic and I'd like make another thread about it sometime as it could spark some really interesting discussions.

My lack of evidence on this matter can mainly be contributed to the fact that there have been zero societies in the past where homosexuals were in the majority. Sure, even in the past, there have been societies where homosexuals were accepted like the Roman society in their prime, and Greek people and some other. But even in those societies, due to religion, people had this kind of mentality "It's ok to live with them but just don't become like them". And because of that, homosexuals didn't grow if not then at a very minute scale. But in this modern world, where homosexuals are protected by laws and there's very little religious interference involved on this subject especially in the West. I wouldn't be surprised if I see a substantial growth of homosexuals in the West. The population was all a prospect to begin with. But artificial insemination taking place of natural reproduction? needless to say, that would creep the **** out of me. But that still would be a far fetched approach for developing countries. Plus, the myths surrounding them in backward areas won't let it go that easily.

Anyways, if homosexuality really does take the place of majority. I don't think that humans will remain as efficient. Just imagine that a bunch of construction workers working at a construction site, majority of them being homosexuals. Well, that would be disastrous. Also, in jails and many other places, homosexuality might become the new sexual harassment method or bullying and stuff. Homosexuals being in the minority has what saved us from all that up until now, but if they become the majority in the far future, everything will become clear. Right now, we can only speculate.

I was mainly targeting the chronic masturbation here. In this age, where physical maturity occurs at the age of 12 or 13 (due to better nutrition etc) and mental maturity happens around 16 to 18 depending on the person. This gap in between is the reason why teenagers are to be abstained from sex till the age of 18. In this gap, we already know that hormone burst is at its peak and the sexual urges of a human being are at it's highest. Masturbation provides a good outlet for all the sexual frustration gathering up.

The real problem arises when the age of 18+ strikes and the individual still didn't have any sexual interaction with anyone. Then, masturbation becomes more of an addiction than a habit. And this is the stage where people are more susceptible to depression and other psychological abnormalities. I don't think I need to explain it any further.

I never denied sexual exploration. The only thing that I intimidated, was that in Western cultures, children from a very early age, open to all kinds of sexual activities. This tends to have a negative impact on their mind. The age of sexual exploration is when the child reaches the age of puberty. In most Eastern religions (notice how I didn't say 'culture'), people are advised to marry as soon as puberty strikes. In old times it was possible but due to the slow mental growth these days and many other factors, it is rather difficult. But in my religion, there's another way out of it but that's a different subject. Therefore, in Eastern 'cultures', this insecurity is present. It's again a different subject but I reiterate, both cultures are failures. With neither being better than the other.

It certainly does. Again on a basic level, it's continuous variation. But I forgot where I said that genes never change....

That is again a matter of opinion. By my definition of 'natural', homosexuals aren't natural. And again by my morals , they are immoral as I stated above in an example about construction workers and stuff. Even now, science could neither prove it nor disprove it. It's just like the existence of God subject which is sprawling with bias because of people believing in different things. But let just put this aside and discuss what we're already discussing.

Not completely

i didnt quote others but, just wanted to say this thread is really interesting

My point was made in a pretty clear and concise. Bolded: in case you missed it.

It would have only taken a minute if you weren't so quick to jump on the persecution scorn train.

That's changing, finally. The moral majority's influence is declining and there are some significant aligned forces in the religious community to give that effort a boost.

@HoolaHoopMan: You seem to be mistaking an opinion for an argument. To your potential surprise the two are quite different from one another. That explains the conciseness you're parading.

For an opinion to qualify an argument you'll unfortunately have to go into somewhat substantial details explaining and attempting to corroborate what you believe to be truthful and factual. Until you do that, I shall remain of the disposition that you're yelling without adding anything of value to anything or anyone.

Its quite simple really and doesn't require mounds of text to explain it. In fact I stated it fairly explicitly earlier in this thread (you seem to have a knack for missing things).

To define something as 'natural' simply means that its a product of nature (very tautological indeed). A better question to ask is 'What is Nature'? And quite simply in its broadest terms nature is the material universe.

So you can quit the persecution act if you'd like.

Yes. It's been recorded in humans for thousands of years, and is also found in other animal species.

It's safe to assume that human homosexuality is as old as humanity, which means that it's older by almost 200,000 years than the oldest of the contemporary religions that condemn it.

It's probably also safe to assume that homosexuality will endure long after all of those religions have been consigned to history.

TC, what do you hope to gain from this argument, is my question. Are you hoping to outlaw homosexuality or merely educate people on it's "evils", so to speak. Because honestly, have you heard of freedom? I still don't understand why you are so concerned with who another human being chooses to have CONSENSUAL and, if they are properly educated, mostly safe sex. There are risks involving homosexual sex, you are right, and for the record this is mostly for anal sex- an act that many homosexuals do not even participate in. Anyway, let's assume you are right, and risk for contracting a sexually transmitted disease is higher through homosexual sex in comparison to heterosexual sex (generally speaking), my question is: so what? Next you'll be campaigning against ice cream, chocolate, alcohol, even video games, all of which have adverse effects on our bodies. Everything we do in life will one day lead to our death, so choose your poison.

Anyway, I noticed you talked about under population in your post earlier. Seriously? Right now we have the exact OPPOSITE problem: we are overpopulated! Even if we weren't overpopulated... and while society still exist... and even if homosexuals somehow became the majority, people will still reproduce. It is in our inherent nature to secretly want children. Think King Henry VIII, who executed and annualed his wives in a desperate (and failed) attempt to produce a male heir.

Remember, as other people have said, homosexuality is something that exists in all species. It's a bit of a stretch to say that it will one day be the dominant sexual orientation as it has not happened to any specie.

All i know is that it's dangerous for the generation ....we may run out of "ppl" !

Yep, one of the most severe problems we, as a race, face...underpopulation... =P

You don't say XD

I believe that I originally explained it fairly concisely in my original post which you seem to have missed. As such, it is presumptuous of you to interject yourself into an argument taking place between two other parties abruptly and start making judgements that are bound to be constructed insufficiently.

Strangely enough, you seem to be repeating what I already stated (bolded), in my own words of course, so I don't understand what exactly is it that you're dissenting against which in turn suggests that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. It is a bit flattering but grows tedious on the long run. And you seem to constantly attack things in my posts that are as irrelevant as it gets to the subject matter of whatever we're discussing. In this instance for example we're discussing the conciseness of my posts, even though not even one of my original posts was addressed to you.

And with regards the persecution act, I really don't understand your fascination with it. I have repeatedly stated that I'm not being persecuted simply because no one possesses the power to persecute me in an internet forum. Therefore, I shall be the one to ask you to quit your persecution "motif".

I am a christian so my answer is no, homosexuality is not natural. I don't go around bashing gay people or spreading gay hate BTW. I tolerate it because it happens but I will never support same sex relationships in anyway. I will treat you with respect if you treat me with respect, just don't try to shove YOUR lifestyle down my throat or say I am intolerant for not supporting your lifestyle. Simply put, that lifestyle goes against my religious beliefs. That doesn't make me a horrible person for believing in the bible and frankly I am tired of society saying that it is wrong for me to disagree with homosexual relationships.

I am not a hateful person but my point is, if being gay was normal then half the human population would die out. Can same sex couples procreate????? If it was natural for two men or two woman to be together then they could create life, that fact that they can't is all the proof I need. Also, I know some straight couples can't have kids but that is due to medical reasons beyond their control. I know that some like to throw out, "o humans are animals and some animals can change sex etc" sorry to tell you but HUMAN BEINGS aren't made like those animals. Also, I reject the idea that someone is "born gay". You may have had feelings for the same sex at a young age, but you CHOSE to act on those feelings, therefore it is a lifestyle. Sorry if that can't out harsh but it's my opinion on the matter.

"It's just not natural" says the people who believe in invisible, all-powerful entities and unseen demons that make people do evil things.

lol

No more ridiculous that people that believe in the big bang theory. Like I said, I don't hate gays but its just not natural, my religious belief aside. Can two men or two woman create a child?? I will wait...... O what's that they can't? Than that's all I need to know.

Why the **** does that matter to you? Sex is not just about reproducing you damn moron, it's also about having fun whether it's a man and a woman, two guys, or two women.

You can deny that it's unnatural all you want but homosexuality is natural. Take the fedora off.

That's okay, I don't support your lifestyle either but I tolerate it.

@CountBleck12:

I wasn't just talking about sex idiot. I was talking about how a man and woman have the proper sexual organs for sex ( penis and vagina) as well as the ability to reproduce. Therefore, I believe straight couples are indeed natural, homosexuality is not.

A gay man desires another man's butt hole and a gay woman desires to rub her vag against another woman's. Not to be offensive but even typing that doesn't feel natural.

The Big Bang Theory has evidence to back it up with background radiation from the expansion we can measure to this day, and the fact the galaxies are moving away from one another.... Even if your religious, you should still be able to accept this as the best explanation how the universe came to be in it's current state.. This in no way contradicts god, merely the ridiculous creationist stories of Adam and Eve and the earth being 6000 years old.. It always baffled me that people feel attacked when the universe is shown to be far far more complicated and mysterious instead of the children's book stories that are within religious texts (at least so much as people taking them literally..)..

Oh trying to be a tough guy now huh? And it sure does seem like you're talking about sex mostly. Also according to your other post, gay people don't shove their gayness "down your throat", the main reason why they are "out there" is because they simply want to become more tolerated unlike people like you that believe that seeing two men kiss will turn you gay. If you know you're straight then it shouldn't bother you because you should be aware that you'll never like guys therefore you're not going to catch shit. Again, why do you care about reproducing? You're saying that as if the world is going to go extinct if there is more gay people around which is completely false. And since when did you choose to be a straight person at birth? Do you really believe that becoming gay was a choice? If that was the case then I'm sure some would choose not to be gay. The reason you ask? Gay people are more often to commit suicide because there are bigoted assholes in the world that can't accept let alone tolerate them especially if those assholes turn out to be people that are close to them. In the end, no, you don't have the choice to be a straight, gay, bi, or asexual when you are first born.

Nature by definition is natural, there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. Maybe next time you should think more before you consider spouting any platitudes.

Some? I would say the RADICALLY majority seeing as up until recently historically, gays were put to death or beaten in most cultures.. Shadowguardian strikes me as a bit of a coward in judging people who are experiencing something that he has never had to deal with before.. And is basically talking out of his asshole because I highly doubt he is fighting his natural urges with going after the opposite sex meanwhile he is telling gays that they should ignore those urges for the rest of their lives... But don't worry I can tolerate your illogical and ridiculous opinions, and move on with my life.

Well I was actually talking more about the present but yes, I forgot to mention that as well. There's no doubt that people wouldn't choose to be gay in those dark times.

And yeah, he pretty much is a coward that is clearly ignorant about homosexuality.

Is it natural to discuss homosexuality on gaming websites forum? I don't think it is. Nature never intended us to discuss this here, I mean what purpose does it serve? We can only attribute this discussion to genetic predisposition triggered by some environmental factors, however I wouldn't say its natural by any means, just an unfortunate misfire that leads to nowhere.