Homosexuality Is Unnatural

[Snowy Rainbow]

I agree. If family members want to have sex, what is wrong with that? They aren't harming anyone. What they do in the bedroom is their business.

Exactly. I understand some arguments against it, like the higher chance of negative effects for a child produced from related pairings. But the chance of two healthy, related people having a child with issues is something like one or two percent higher than an unrelated couple. Is it really worth (trying) to deprive people of that love? And if it is, anyone with any form of genetic disease or disorder, or anyone that has a slightly higher chance of having an unhealthy baby should also not be allowed to engage in sex.

That's just silly.

If homosexuality was unnatural, it wouldn't occur. This is my argument against this rather stupid statement.

Exactly what I was thinking. Unless aliens or gods have done something, ANYTHING we do is natural.

 

[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.

 

[Halceon]

. From a biological standpoint male and female come together to make a child.

Also from a biological standpoint the borders between male and female are pretty wonky.

Since gender depends to a huge extent upon hormones during pregnancy, there are documented cases of XX males and XY females. So here's a brain teaser - suppose we have a couple of XY people, one of which appears to be a woman, and a couple of apparent males, one of which has XX chromosomes. Which of these couples is homosexual?

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Does your grandma wear glasses? If so, point out that those are unnatural. You're unlikely to change her mind, but it would at least be fun.

Anyways, as you stated, there's nothing to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural.

The irony is delicious!

Paul when he became the first pope layed down a few moral laws one of which was "Natural law" stating all sex acts must have a chance of producing a child. Over the passed 2000 years it has goten turned into people thinking it is about nature itself(in wich case there are about 3500 animals out there with homosexual relationships)
so in the end it basically comes down to them often no knowing the argument there using

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that. I didn't know. ^^

Lol your avatar makes more sense now, but I totally see what you mean, we see homosexuality in nature in many places

What? Snow has something to do with sexuality?

 

[Cowabungaa]

Show her a video of 2 male lions hitting it off, or any other non-human critter doin' it the backdoor with his buddy. That'll silence her.

 

[Anezay]

It reduces the odds of successful reproduction.
I've always thought that I was personally shallow for being hetero. Someone who really cares about what's inside wouldn't care if something's dangling on the outside. Bisexual folks have got their shit in order, if you ask me.
Me? I just don't have that gene.

 

[Emperor Platypus]

I think religion has a lot to do with the misconception that homosexuality is wrong.

Stephen Fry once said that the Catholic church does not exist to spread the word of Christ. (which last time I checked was based on love and acceptance) It exists solely to exercise power and control over the lives of its followers.... Well that's what I got from the speech anyway. Maybe that shows my own misgivings about the Catholic church. But frankly any organisation which is prepared to say that a person or group of people are morally evil and wrong. Not based on what they think or say, but based on who they are. Well neither that organisation nor the god they claim to represent is worth it my respect.

Anyhow, although it doesn't play as large a role in modern western society as it used to. The influence it has had over the preceding centuries means that anti-gay feelings have been firmly entrenched into our modern psyche.


Now let's throw in a couple of disclaimers in there for the hell of it.

1: I'm not saying the Catholic church is solely responsible for anti-gay feelings. Other factors are present as well, and also other religions can be as unforgiving towards homosexuals as Christianity.

2: For any Catholics out there, I am sorry if I offended you, or if I made it seem like I was attacking your religion. I am in no way saying that your faith is wrong nor am I condemning you for having it. I agree wholeheartedly with Jesus his teachings of peace and love. It?s the institution of the Catholic church I have problems with, not the word it (supposedly) spreads.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

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.

. From a biological standpoint male and female come together to make a child.

Also from a biological standpoint the borders between male and female are pretty wonky.

Since gender depends to a huge extent upon hormones during pregnancy, there are documented cases of XX males and XY females. So here's a brain teaser - suppose we have a couple of XY people, one of which appears to be a woman, and a couple of apparent males, one of which has XX chromosomes. Which of these couples is homosexual?

You'll have to explain this to me. I don't understand how a baby with two X's is male, or vice versa. Do you mean mentally? Like gender? In that case I agree. Transgender people are the gender their brain tells them they are. Sex is just a byproduct of hormones during formative pregnancy.

 

[dillinger88]

*snip*

Because it's the simplest and most obvious example and sometimes the simplest arguments are the best as even the most simple of people can understand and there's no room for twisting it? Just sayin'.

I disagree there. How hard is it for someone to twist , "Animals are gay, so gay is natural" into, "Animals also eat and play with their own shit. They lack the same levels of intelligence we do. So why do you think were no better than animals?".

The simplest fact is that all existence is subjective, So using glib analogies like that is not likely going to act as any sort of defense.

Like I said in my original post, it's a simple argument to do with the definition of the word "natural". Nothing to do with intelligence of a particular species. If someone is dumb enough to give the argument "Gays are unnatural" without anything to back it up, that analogy coupled with the definition of "natural" is a pretty solid case, in my opinion.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you're crediting the "gays are unnatural trololol" crowd with too much intelligence.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Show her a video of 2 male lions hitting it off. That'll silence her.

I really don't wanna see that though XD

It reduces the odds of successful reproduction.
I've always thought that I was personally shallow for being hetero. Someone who really cares about what's inside wouldn't care if something's dangling on the outside. Bisexual folks have got their shit in order, if you ask me.
Me? I just don't have that gene.

You've got your shit in order. You're exactly the kind of person I wish there were more of.

Keep on being awesome ^^

 

[Anezay]

. From a biological standpoint male and female come together to make a child.

Also from a biological standpoint the borders between male and female are pretty wonky.

Since gender depends to a huge extent upon hormones during pregnancy, there are documented cases of XX males and XY females. So here's a brain teaser - suppose we have a couple of XY people, one of which appears to be a woman, and a couple of apparent males, one of which has XX chromosomes. Which of these couples is homosexual?

The apparent dudes. I don't know anyone who tests genotypes before dating, but everyone checks phenotypes.

 

[Dismal purple]

Since all the important points have already been made, I'll just reminisce on what my teacher said in 9th grade when she taught genetics:

"It is normal for the abnormal to occur."

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Since all the important points have already been made, I'll reminisce on what my teacher said in 9th grade when she taught genetics:

"It is normal for the abnormal to occur."

Careful how often you say that. In the right situation it could probably create a blackhole, lol.

 

[Griffolion]

. From a biological standpoint male and female come together to make a child.

Also from a biological standpoint the borders between male and female are pretty wonky.

Since gender depends to a huge extent upon hormones during pregnancy, there are documented cases of XX males and XY females. So here's a brain teaser - suppose we have a couple of XY people, one of which appears to be a woman, and a couple of apparent males, one of which has XX chromosomes. Which of these couples is homosexual?

Yeah I see your point. This is why I ask, why does the wider issue of homosexuality being 'natural' even warrant discussion? It's a really strange thing to do considering how apparently culturally and philosophically enlightened we are today in the world. The only groups that stand in the way of more or less full consensus that homosexuality is as normal as the day is long are fundamentalist religious groups (that fall far short of doing justice to the faith they 'claim' to represent) and the generation that's composed of our grandparents who were simply raised in a less tolerant culture than we are today.

PS - I'm pretty sure there was an episode of House that looked at Chimera's. The girl who was a Chimera had testicles for ovaries, but other than that, she was all woman. It's a really weird thing, oh nature.

Since all the important points have already been made, I'll reminisce on what my teacher said in 9th grade when she taught genetics:

"It is normal for the abnormal to occur."

Careful how often you say that. In the right situation it could probably create a blackhole, lol.

I see a divide by zero joke coming from all this, lol.

 

[Zulnam]

I have nothing against homosexuals and the legalization of their rights as long as I can still use the terms "gay" and "fag" as comedic insults.

If they start taking those away, that would be just gay.

 

[ScumbagEddie]

maybe it IS aliens trying to lessen the amount of people on the earth,

Just to shoot this one down, the population of the planet has INCREASED by at least 1 billion people in the last 15 years. Just saying...

 

[dillinger88]

Natural - Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Homosexuality occurs in animals, thus nature.* http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5706975/?site_locale=en_GB

Ergo, homosexuality is natural.

End of argument.

EDIT: Missquote. :/


* I know this is somewhat under debate. Mainly conservative and religious sects disagree the most (Obvious, much?). Though all the evidence points to it existing. Infact, my two female gerbils mount each other all the time. Not sure why they think they're dudes, but the point still stands.

Natural and un-natural are kinda redundant arguements in today's society. It's un-natural for humans to travel at 35,000 feet at a speed of 500 MPH but that doesn't stop people flying.

I don't think it's redundant at all. I totally agree that there are a lot of things that the human race does is unnatural. My argument was against the statement. By definition of the word natural (existing in nature), homosexuality falls under that banner. That's all I was saying.