Homosexuality Is Unnatural

[similar.squirrel]

Unnatural ain't necessarily a bad thing. Funny thing is, the kind of people who claim that homosexuality is an unnatural aberration are often the ones who deny evolution.

 

[rossatdi]

I can't remember where I read it but there was a theory that homosexuality was an evolution development to help control population growth in some species. The logic being that a small mutation that alters sexual preference helps reduce (i) violent competition for mates in situations with a large male population and (ii) unsustainable population growth in times of hardship.

I've heard that idea. It's an interesting one, but doesn't, I don't think, work well with my theory of evolution.

'Your theory of evolution'? Or your understanding of the theory of evolution?

I think the logic is that if you have 4 brothers with a limited pool of females to mate with, taking 1 of the brothers out of the equation means a significant proportion of even the homosexual male's DNA is still likely to get passed on but without the risk of death/injury through violent competition.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

My view? If both people are of legal age, it doesn't matter who you find sexually attractive and have sexual relations with. I hope that the majority comes to accept this in the future. I view fundamentalist Abrahamic religions to be an obstacle in this path. But I have no problem with the Abrahamic religions as long as they don't try to impose their views on the majority. And that is my 2 cents on the matter.

I agree with you 100% on that. I've also been a long-term "advocate" for lack of a better term, of incest. I don't want to be in an incestuous relationship, but I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Why are we (humans) fighting love? Lol.

Okay, this I DO have a problem with - incest is nothing like homosexuality. Incest relies on superseding traditional family roles, and in the vast majority of cases the power dynamic of the prior role defines how the sexual relationship proceeds. This can be tremendously harmful to the low status partner's psyche, and all traditional familial safety nets have been compromised. Now consider that the low-status person will nearly always be the younger one, preyed on by an older sibling or parent in a role of authority, and the power imbalance becomes clearer. Parents should NOT be sleeping with their children, and suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, pansexuality - all fine by me because they're all consensual arrangements between equal consenting partners. Once you have a power imbalance - parent, teacher, priest etc. - you're laying the groundwork for coercion. That's just wrong.

 

[Friendshipandmagic]

I'm sorry but the "homosexuality is bad" "crap" has been around for millenia, it's not new.

Yhea people have thought all sorts of stupid things forever, its only become socially acceptable to be homophobic within recent decades. For the most part.

I'm also aware that exceptions exist, do you want to bang on about a few of those or stick to the thread?

 

[John the Gamer]

I'm under the impression that most people are droids instead of squishy animal humans. Homosexuality is perfectly natural, so is canibalism and war. I'm not gay myself but I've had friends who are/were and well, who cares?

So now for something not so entirely diffent:

This reminded me of a article about polygamy.

It stated the 6 biggest upsides to polygamy. They were thus:

"1. Men are better behaved when there's less women to go around. Polygamy creates a shortage of women, so men are more eager to stay loyal to their own wife, in order to keep her.(and his chances to create offspring) So polygamy for the few creates Monogamy for the masses. No more cheating!

2. Men with two women, or who have to share their women with another man will produce stronger sperm to increase the chances of competing and producing offspring.

3. Polygamous(?) men live longer. Polygamous men take better care of themselves because they have to care for more other people. A proper explaination for this one has yet to be found.

4. It's the ultimate feministic lifestype(nope, thats really what it says) Because women who share their houshold with others have more time to persue carreers.

5. Benefit of the doubt: It has a bad image because it's illegal and the only one practitioning it are nutcases. If it were legalized it would be easier to see the benefits of it.

6. It makes sense: until 1850 we died at 40 and were together with loved ones for maybe 15 years. If we'll be living till 150 in the near futere, you'll be spending a hundred(100) years with the same old boring person. It would be a normal course of action to accept it as normal after gay, lesbian and bisexual relationships.
A woman could have a muscle builder for sex, a guy in suit for money and a gay guy for shopping."

I can't give you the source, because it's a paper magazine, and in Dutch. This is their site though.
http://www.kijk.nl/

Also for those who don't know what polygamy is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Animals are not self-aware, therefore they aren't sentient.

A few species are -- aside from humans. Numerous studies have shown, for example, a few different types of ape to be self aware, as well as some dolphins to name just two.

Oh and there is a difference between sentience and self-awareness. Most every developed country recognizes most animals as we know them to be sentient life.

Studies have also shown some dolphins to think they're human.

Not self-aware.

Just Goolge into it a little. Numerous species (besides humans) have been shown to be self-aware.

But, again, self-awareness and sentience are not one in the same. Sentience is the ability to discern pain from pleasure, to avoid that which causes harm and seek that which feels good. Most animals we know them (barring things like minor forms of life such as algae) are sentient and that's why it is illegal to cause unnecessary pain to them.

 

[freaper]

Trying to change the view of a person that has lived 60+ years under more restrictive conditions than you is hard, if not impossible. Unless someone was sceptic of everything society threw at him/her in their younger years, that person wont change attitude when growing older.

Having skirted this argument with my own grandmother (catholic, 80+) I can tell you how much the previous generations are rooted in their beliefs, and while I'd be happy for someone of that age to recognize our generation's different mentality, I'm not going to bother changing their mind.

 

[MindBullets]

We haven't been sticking to what's "natural" since we invented the wheel. They're right in as much as it isn't natural (mostly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals]) but that's a stupid reason for it to be considered immoral.

 

[Dexiro]

You'll find that every reason for homophobia can be easily debunked. Noone stops to think about their reasons, they were just bought up homophobic and they don't want to change.

"Unnatural" is one of the easier arguments to deal with. Modern civilization is probably the most unnatural thing going, and even so being unnatural only becomes a bad thing in this particular argument.

Homosexuality is fairly grounded in nature, being unnatural isn't bad, we live in an unnatural civilization anyway ~

 

[BanicRhys]

So an alien species made them gay? Maybe a god did? If you consider it to be unnatural, the only other alternative is the supernatural.

To be blunt, homosexuality is a malfunction or mutation of sorts as far as nature is concerned anyway.

Also, who says sex is purely for procreation? That sounds like conjecture and opinion to me.

In nature, sex is for procreation only. Anything we do that does not aid our vital functions or procreation is unnatural.

Nature's purpose for us is to grow up, procreate and die. That is the purpose of every living thing, (hell, some animals even die straight after impregnating their partner).
Homosexuality prevents procreation, denies someone from fulfilling their natural purpose in life and is thus, unnatural.

Just because we are more advanced than the other creatures on this planet doesn't make our purpose in life any different from when we were still swinging through the trees millions of years ago.

Again, there's nothing wrong with it in this day and age but it is still technically "unnatural".

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

My view? If both people are of legal age, it doesn't matter who you find sexually attractive and have sexual relations with. I hope that the majority comes to accept this in the future. I view fundamentalist Abrahamic religions to be an obstacle in this path. But I have no problem with the Abrahamic religions as long as they don't try to impose their views on the majority. And that is my 2 cents on the matter.

I agree with you 100% on that. I've also been a long-term "advocate" for lack of a better term, of incest. I don't want to be in an incestuous relationship, but I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Why are we (humans) fighting love? Lol.

Okay, this I DO have a problem with - incest is nothing like homosexuality. Incest relies on superseding traditional family roles, and in the vast majority of cases the power dynamic of the prior role defines how the sexual relationship proceeds. This can be tremendously harmful to the low status partner's psyche, and all traditional familial safety nets have been compromised. Now consider that the low-status person will nearly always be the younger one, preyed on by an older sibling or parent in a role of authority, and the power imbalance becomes clearer. Parents should NOT be sleeping with their children, and suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, pansexuality - all fine by me because they're all consensual arrangements between equal consenting partners. Once you have a power imbalance - parent, teacher, priest etc. - you're laying the groundwork for coercion. That's just wrong.

God in Heaven, no! Parents shouldn't have sex with their kids. If they choose to seek a relationship that happens to involve sex when their offspring are adults, that's fine.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Natural? As we sit around in manufactured clothes requires industries and labour, typing on plastic keyboards looking at the glowing screens of computers. We are a long way from natural, and the traditionalists can never quite accept, homosexuality isn't the most unnatural aspect of modern existence.

 

[Olrod]

The next time she goes to see her doctor, tell her that medicine is unnatural.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

She's absolutely right, except for everything she said. There are dozens of species of animals that engage in homosexual activity. Those that do actually gain social benefits and are a tighter knit community than those that don't. I think it is one species of American Buffalo that around half the sex they have is gay.

The choice argument is so silly. When does anyone choose what turns them on.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

In case nobody else has linked it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o

 

[Monsterfurby]

Yes, it is unnatural.

However, so is flying and using computers all day. Human beings weren't made for that biologically, but it's our bloody right to do it.

Homosexuality is a matter of preference, and while we weren't strictly designed (i.e. it is not helpful to evolutionary considerations/survival of the race) for it, our modern society has advanced far enough for us to stray off the path of strictly biological rules and make our own way according to preference.

That is why it might be unnatural, but not wrong; and why modern society must detach itself from the notion of biological utilitarianism (as propagated by some religions due to historical reasons) to SOME degree and embrace freedom.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

So an alien species made them gay? Maybe a god did? If you consider it to be unnatural, the only other alternative is the supernatural.

To be blunt, homosexuality is a malfunction or mutation of sorts as far as nature is concerned anyway.

Also, who says sex is purely for procreation? That sounds like conjecture and opinion to me.

In nature, sex is for procreation only. Anything we do that does not aid our vital functions or procreation is unnatural.

Nature's purpose for us is to grow up, procreate and die. That is the purpose of every living thing, (hell, some animals even die straight after impregnating their partner).
Homosexuality prevents procreation, denies someone from fulfilling their natural purpose in life and is thus, unnatural.

The malfunction, as you put it, occurred naturally and is therefore natural. Also, blue eyes are a malfunction. Are you going to call that unnatural? Evolution itself is all about mutations being the natural course of life. You seeing something as abnormal does NOT make it unnatural. Unless aliens or god did something, it's natural.

And again you state your opinion on sex as fact. I hate to tell you, but the way you see things as "meant to be" doesn't make them true. Also, not only do homosexual animals have sex in the wild, dolphins have sex with one another all the time for no point other than pleasure. It's a documented fact.

 

[etherlance]

I wouldn't be so harsh on your gran, she just grew up in a world where that sort of thing was not socially acceptable.


As for my view:

Not really bothered:

To be precise what I mean is that, I'm not bothered by someones sexuality in the slightest.
One of my best friends recently came out as gay and he asked me if I was ok with it.

I just said to him:

"Look.....I don't care who you decide to put your penis in, as long as it's not me then we're cool".


I'll admit it is slightly akward hearing him talk about guys on TV but frankly when all's said and done, it's his decision and all the best to him for it.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

I think this is appropriate

Spoiler

youtube=1_Z8v4iXSPg

Anyway, Serious Face

Look, you can make all the arguments you want to about gay animals, or how everything we do is unnatural. Waste of time. It might shut people up, but it wont change their mind.

Thing is, these people dont have a real argument against homosexuality. Its not facts, morals or ethics, they just plain dont like it. Its pretty much pointless to argue with them, they dont have a real opinion, its more of a feeling.

And you know what, fuck'em. Im sick of people trying to convince someone that homosexuality is ok when they clearly think its not. It wont work, their views arent based on rational thought. Let them rot on the tracks as the train of progress steams ahead. We should be abhorring these people, not coming up with excuses and facts to qualify our viewpoint. If they want to cast away their homophobia and their other prejudices, sure, welcome them with open arms.

Rather than trying to convince people that were wrong, we should just assume were right and go from there.

Wow, that got serious. Sorry.

 

[Umwerfer]

overpopulation is a problem, this is an excellent way of dealing with it.