Is homosexuality a natural thing?

@toast_burner: Who the Hell cares? Humans can do what they want with there sexual life. Everyone has there secrets, it's not my business to judge another Human being.

well unfortunately some people do care. You're right it's none of their business if some couple kisses in public or have sex in private, but some people like to think it is their business.

Yeah. Some of the most awesome things are "unnatural."

yes

To be considered natural, it must be present in nature. Homosexuality is present in nature. Therefore, it is natural. Humans are not the only animals who can be gay.

We're*

discussing*

Of course we are..... it's eternal.. huehuehuehue

I used to debate this issue with myself a lot. It boils down to the simple concept of nature vs nurture.

whichever side of that argument you fall on, does it really matter if a person was genetically predisposed to have have sexual desires for a member of a similar sex, or if they just elected out of their own free will to have a relationship with each other?

Either way, why would you want to impede on them when it doesn't affect you.

Most of the things people like to debate about doesn't really affect them any way.

When people debate this matter, they're doing this either to justify the religion's claims that 'homosexuality is evil' or they're trying to disprove that. That's the only reason why this debate exist.

I would need to have "natural" defined to comment.

Fine whatever. I play my part in this, I'll have nothing further to comment on this stupid thread.

Its getting pretty tiresome debating with someone like you Thegerg, you go from literal jane to ambiguous joe in a split second and often multiple times in a post to suit what ever home-made argument you want to come across.

But anyways of course you are and your likeminded need to prove that animals have the same perception of sex/gender as humans, otherwise its pointless to compare two things, its like comparing apples and chocolate eggs. Because after all there could be 100 of reasons why a animal acts a certain way, dominace, submissive, insanity etc.....

So calling homosexuality natural is dead wrong and the only one needing to look anything up is you.

why did i bother coming back to read just one thread

literally one thread

one

Well, again with the idea of being literal jane and thinking that homo-sexuality just means "having sex with the same gender" sexuality doesn't even come close to just meaning putting your wang in someone´s dong.

But you want the biggest argument for homosexuality not being natural, is that its simply not possible to reproduce, thereby its clearly a deviant behaviour.

The vast majority of things people do doesn't result in procreation.

You are right and thats why in the end does it really matter if something is natural or not?

I know why some tend to fire up the debate about homosexuality being natural because if its natural they can claim its somehow more normal which is just stupid.

No.

People argue that it's natural because to say it's anything else is incredibly stupid. No it doesn't matter but why would anyone argue that it's unnatural when it so obviously is?

In what way do you care if it is or isn't?

And what 2 human adults do in their bed should be their business no one elses.

But since you ask , since the natural thing for any species is to secure the survival of its race, any behaviour not tuned to that is unnatural.

You must mean that its incredible stupid to claim that it is natural.

Look up the definition of natural. The word is completely pointless. If something exists then it is natural.

@Jacanuk

Are you creating some new style of debate where you don't have to actually give any evidence for your claims?

Do you mean if i am creating a way of debating like you where i think education is intelligence? then no.

At least i dont run around like you Grey seal and just invent things.

lol. Still asshurt about that thread? (The awful reading comprehension that led you to believe I was saying education=intelligence demonstrates the importance of education).

Anyway, you've completely invented a definition of natural in which procreation is mandatory. Why don't you show us, with a credible source, where you're getting that definition?

Disclaimer: your ass doesn't count as a source.

Are you disputing facts you should have learned in biology 101 in first grade? and you claim education makes you intelligent....

Also you clearly need to learn to read and understand english, you claimed that education was key in the ability to reason, i proved you wrong and even pointed out that intelligence is what makes you able to reason. You because of clearly being aware of your mistake, then kept trying to pull the debate in another direction, i kinda pity your attempt because it failed miserably and you were schooled by several others also.

Haha. I know you're angry about what happened in that thread, but you really need to let it go. This thread is about homosexuality, it's not a place for you to lick your wounds.

Again, if these are facts I should have learned in Biology 101, it should be easy for you produce a credible source that says that procreation is mandatory is something being natural. So where is your source?

Protip: you need something that is called a "source" to prove a claim. Just insisting on something doesn't make it true.

Funny that our good buddy Jacanuk totally ignored this post.

What planet are you on? or are you really asking me to educate you on how a species survive?

Wow, i have heard some dumb things on gamespot but you really do take the cake and the stand and everything else.

No, I am not asking you to educate me on how species survive (as if you have the ability to educate anybody on anything). I'm asking you produce a credible source that proves that procreation is mandatory in a definition of natural.

Where is your source? If what I'm saying is so dumb, you should be able to easily produce one.

You need to learn to read what i wrote, But since you claim to have a GF with a biology degree, you should know that for a species to survive it has to reproduce, and since that takes 2. It´s pretty obvious that its pretty natural for a species to mate with the opposite sex, its again pretty obvious that it's unnatural for a species to "mate" with its own gender.

And since you still haven´t with your waste knowledge of biology been able to link, prove or otherwise that animals have the same concept of sex and gender, its again not even once proven that homosexuality happens in nature, since its again and you with your biology knowledge should know this, not just about sex with the same gender, unless you also start to claim that it is what makes you gay.

Saying "it's pretty obvious" is no substitute for sourcing your claims. Again, where are your sources?

It would seem that Jacanuk prefers the company of gentlemen.

*snickers*

Right and i don't have to prove to anyone that the sky is blue or that fire can burn.

So sorry i don't have time to waste explaining kindergarten things to you, so ask your teacher or mom.

You do realize that it won't kill you to admit that you can't produce a source, right? All this deflection you're doing looks exhausting.

If this is kindergarten stuff, it will take you all of one minute to source your claim. So where are your sources?

Funnily enough, if you look up natural in the dictionary, it says absolutely nothing about procreation.

You see how thegerg linked to wikipedia to support his argument, Jacanuk? That is called sourcing your claim. I promise you that it's quite an easy process.

And here you have your biggest problem.

You and Wikipedia have yet to prove that animals have the same understanding of sex and gender as humans and that the "homosexual" behaviour witnessed is actually that and not just basic instincts and a fluke because the animal either isent in contact with the opposite sex, like with the gay penguins in a zoo (People forgot in their gay thoughts that penguins in nature has a behaviour where males take care of the egg, and females gather food, and that the two male penguins just showed normal behaviour, not to mention that they usually stick to one mate for life) or a case of a male/female exerting its dominance over other males/females.

So again prove that and we can agree that homosexuality exists in nature, otherwise stop trying to prove something that you can't.

You really need to stop trying make up your own definitions to fit your own little home made argument.

"Homosexuality (from Ancient Greekὁμός, meaning "same", and Latinsexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."^[1][2]

Along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum.^[1] There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation.^[1] Many scientists think that nature and nurture – a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences – factor into the cause of sexual orientation.^[1][3] They favor biologically-based theories,^[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, both, or the inclusion of genetic and social factors.^[4][5] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;^[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.^[5] While some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,^[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.^[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation,^[1] and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.^[9]"

Or do you suddenly want to claim that Wiki is not a reliable source.....

Not to mention that his own source says this:

"While some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,^[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.^[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation,^[1] and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.^[9]"

lol