Is homosexuality a natural thing?

Been a long time since my last thread. And as usual, this one's gonna be a good flamebait as well thread promoting a healthy discussion and debate.

So, is homosexuality a natural thing?

I tried looking up any scientific fact, but I couldn't find any. Then I searched for arguments presented by those who support it, apart from the 'majority does it' or 'it occurs and has been there for a long time' I couldn't find any other argument. These arguments made negative sense to me. Majority never makes a thing good or bad.Something being there for a long time? wow, I can't even begin to argue with this logic.

I need a definite proof. If Homosexuality is a natural thing then why is the risk of getting AIDs higher in homosexual relations? Why can't they have a safe sex without contraceptions? if it is natural, then they should be able to. So far, it only seems like, that the environment has a major rule to play in homosexuality. Because if you see, societies where homosexuals are generally despised, there are almost zero homos to be found there. And not only that, the upbringing also effects the mind.

Which side are you on and what argument do you have to present to prove your point? share it with us. Enlighten us.

Homosexuality has been observed in non-human animals, and since humans are animals too, I'd say it's natural. People who think homosexuals just decide to be homosexual were dropped on the floor when they were babies.

As far as I know only bisexuality has been observed in animals.

Just 'observed' is not enough to prove it. If animals do something, it doesn't mean it's totally natural. Animals are too damn different when it comes to sexual behavior. I don't think I need to explain why they're different because it's effing obvious.

and no flaming pls

with what?

Humans are part of the animal kingdom.

In any case It seems to me that the argument of homosexuality being a natural thing was first presented to bash the church. But it seems it has taken a different direction nowadays.

Being a 'part' and being 'identical' are two different things don't ya think? monkeys belong to the animal kingdom, lions too, but are they similar in their sexual behavior? no.

That's not very nice. Be a good kid and apologize.

I thought you were going to say with ball. 'Cause you know that would be more relevant to the topic.

That's l-lewd. I don't approve.

Apparently you didn't look very hard: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study.

It appears that homosexuality -- as is the same for so many other psychological constructs -- arises from a confluence of environmental factors and genetic ones (i.e. diathesis-stress model). In layman's terms, what this means is that certain people are more prone to homosexuality because they are genetically predisposed to it, but that homosexual behavior will not arise until certain environmental factors are present to trigger that behavior (e.g. a person or group of people who regularly and openly engage in homosexual behavior). Beyond that, there is most likely a third element or factor which could simply be called choice: a person, given the desire and opportunity to engage in homosexual behavior could either choose to do so, or choose not to. The issue is that if a person does feel strong desires to engage in homosexual behavior, them choosing to deny their impulses to act on those desires may lead to harmful long term psychological issues of sexual repression.

People who try to boil homosexuality down to some sort of moral decision are simply ignoring the scientific facts -- not to mention the essentials of a truer morality which grants human beings the freedom to choose their sexual identity. Encouraging individuals to flat out deny their sexual impulses is psychologically destructive. Homosexuality is as natural as any other behavior in modern human society. To say otherwise is contrary to science and to ethics.

If something exists, it is natural.

Natural is the most pointless word ever conceived.

Thank you. I feel the same goddamn way.

And nothing is unnatural either.

I read the whole article and I have to say, I stand corrected. The genes play the mere role of 'tendency' of a person to be a gay or not. After that, it's up to the environment and other factors. It's just like, there's a tendency to steal, to murder in every human, and after that, it's up to the human and his upbringing. This part explains it even better:

The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.

The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.

And thus the conclusion; it's not natural. What's natural? How will you define natural? something that exists? or something that's made to exist? Of course, the former here is what we mean by natural. If you say, something that exists is natural, then tell me, are cars natural?

After reading that whole article, it has led me more towards the concept that this is rather an unnatural behavior. Ok, let's posit, it is natural. By your definition only. Now, why is there a greater risk of AIDs and STDs involved in homosexual behavior? skip the question. If there is this risk, then doesn't it make more sense to prevent this kind of behavior?

Yeah, I agree with this too.

I didn't choose to be heterosexual. I'm just naturally attracted to the opposite sex.

Can't be hard to imagine for some people to be naturally attracted to the same sex.

Explain...

Heterosexual chose you.

If two individuals are perfectly STD free, safe and consensual gay sex can be exactly that: safe and consensual. AIDs is more likely to be transmitted during gay sex (not lesbian, don't be confused: lesbian partners actually have LESS of a chance to transmit AIDs than heterosexual partners), because anal intercourse provides for a more vulnerable area for contraction: I'm not going to get descriptive here, I'm just gonna hope you get what I mean.

The AIDs epidemic broke out in the very enclosed gay community during the 1980s and so there is a cultural stigma that gay sex is super dangerous: all sex CAN be dangerous if a partner has an STD or if the sex is not consensual; homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise. So by that notion, and if we were to follow your suggestion, ALL sex should be prevented. (Either that or ONLY lesbian sex should be allowed.)

Justifying a moratorium on gay sex or homosexual behavior by highlighting the possibility of STDs doesn't make any sense, and ethically makes even less sense.

ALL partners in ANY kind of relationship, whether heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc., should be tested for STDs and should always practice safe, consensual, and generally protected sex. For the well informed, this is common sense.

Black people are more likely to get AIDS than white people. Should we encourage people to not be black as well?

The reason gays are more likely to have AIDS is homophobia. When AIDS first started everybody refused to give sex education about homosexuals (it was even made illegal to talk about it in the UK) even to this day sex education is terrible especially for homosexuals.

It doesn't matter.

Either way, the gayness rises.

Let's get the gay issue aside, it's more dangerous. Tests aren't something you can do on a whim and it's not the most practical way to deal with it. Statistics speak for themselves, not much people resort to testing before involving in sexual acts. We're talking about it being natural or unnatural. So if we have to take this factor here, gay sex should be more safer by default. Just like heterosexual sex. But it's not.

Now we take the lesbians. Their sex might be safer. But if you look at the overall impact of this relation on their health; it's disastrous. Take a look at this article : http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/lesbian-bisexual-health.html

I'm not saying all sex should be prevented. I'm saying that to justify all kinds of sex, you need to come up with a proof which is safer. And in the end, heterosexual behavior comes out as the safest. No risk of getting cancer, or STDs. And remember we're talking the 'defaults' here. Using contraceptions, or having a test before sex is not included here. Because that's not something many people practice when they're excited.

Reason?

OH GOD WHAT IF IT'S CONTAGIOUS?

Because more black people have HIV and people tend to stick to their own race when choosing a partner. Christian missionaries going to black countries is also a very large factor. Education for black people was also very lacking during the AIDS epidemic.

Public transportation is far, far safer than everyone having their own vehicle. It's also better for the environment. So, apply your logic above and surrender your vehicle.

Healthy meals are better than fast food, so never, ever eat fast food again.

Seriously, why choose to apply that rule of logic only to sex?

Because sex isn't as casual as the 'other' matters you mentioned. AIDs is worse than heart disease that you'll get for eating lots of fast foods. An overall epidemic of AIDs and sexual diseases is more dangerous than a polluted environment. One means suddenly getting rekt and the other is slow and eventual death. One has a direct cure, the other has collected quite a 'controversy' around it.

Honestly speaking, it seems like that to the West, sexual behavior is just as casual and easygoing as eating food or any other stuff. But...it's not.

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Master_Live said:

It doesn't matter.

Either way, the gayness rises.

OH GOD WHAT IF IT'S CONTAGIOUS?

It's funny on how most if not every homophobe thinks that way.

AIDs is worse than whole families dying because someone ran a red light? WTF?

I don't know what 'rekt' is suppose to mean so I'm not going to comment on that part.

And yeah sex can be casual. Sex isn't the same as lovemaking much as a brohug isn't the same as a fully-body-press hug.

Technically, way more heterosexuals contract STDs each year than homosexuals. You said there's no risk of getting cancer or STDs from heterosexual sex, and that is completely wrong. Just flat out wrong. Heterosexuals contract STDs constantly. And those STDs sometimes lead to cancer, as is the case with HPV, which is primarily transmitted between heterosexual couples and directly leads to cervical cancer in women. AIDs started spreading through Africa BECAUSE of unprotected heterosexual sex. Once again, we return to the same issue: all sex is dangerous, not just gay sex.

As far as the lesbian lifestyle/health correlation goes, there are similar correlations present between all sorts of lifestyle choices, personal identity characteristics, etc. and negative health effects. Take for example liberal political ideology: technically, just aligning yourself as a liberal politically puts you at higher risk for alcoholism: http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/30/who-drinks-more-liberals-or-conservatives/. Does that mean liberal political views should be outlawed?

This strain of thought is tangential at best. Once again, homosexuality is as natural as any other human lifestyle choice, and homosexuality, bisexuality and the like should all be fully permitted between consenting partners.

EDIT: And sex with contraceptives, sexual protection and the like should necessarily be considered here. Protection greatly lowers the instances of STD transmission. Partners NEED to have safe sex, regardless of sexual orientation. To say otherwise is simply ignorant.

Heart disease kills way more people than HIV. Also getting HIV doesn't mean you will definitely get AIDS.

And why are you ignoring that black people are much more likely to get HIV than white people? In the UK 40% of HIV diagnosis in 2007 where for black people despite that they only make up 3% of the country. Or do you also believe we should prevent people from being black?

No it isn't and I see the asinine argument that "it happens in nature therefore its natural" cropped up already in the topic. Everything in nature serves a purpose, one biological function or another. Heterosexual intercourse serves the purpose of procreation and the preservation of the species. Its homosexual counterpart serves no purpose whatsoever. What is natural is translated in anatomy and is statistically prevalent if not exclusive, and there is nothing in anatomy translating homosexuality and it remains to be a statistical anomaly in comparison.

That aside, if we are to follow the rationale of "it happens in nature therefore its natural" then genetic disorders, which are by definition abnormal and unnatural, are natural. Deviation from nature is not natural its the opposite of that. Even if we are to accept that mind-numbing argument, it contributes absolutely nothing of value to the case of homosexuality because using that same argument everything is natural in which case the argument loses all meaning. Homosexuality is natural, murder is natural, bestiality is natural, ice cream is natural, rape is natural, falafel is natural, so? What legitimacy does being natural add to anything is such a case? As such, I don't understand the emphasis on the naturalness of homosexuality. Its either everything that can exist either in abstracto or in concreto is natural, in which case so what, or that the mere possibility or reality of existing in nature at any level has nothing to do with the naturalness of homosexuality in which case its not natural.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say genetic disorders are unnatural. Congratulations that is a whole new level of stupidity.

Also nobody here is saying natural = good. Yet you seem to think unnatural = bad.

Showers and bathing aren't natural, body odor serves well-understood purposes especially when it comes to both male dominance over other males and mate selection. So, do you bathe?

Seriously, anyone who believes that things that aren't natural are de facto abhorrent should really return to their caves.

FYI: genetic disorders are evolution at work. Completely natural. Not all genetic disorders are harmful (tetrachromacy for instance).

I'd like you to point out where I stated that "things that aren't natural are de facto abhorrent". If I said anything regarding this, it would be kind of the opposite when I stated that naturalness of something doesn't add legitimacy to anything in particular.

You didn't get my point but ok. Heterosexuals contract STDs more than homosexuals because they're in the majority. As simple as that. I didn't say STD is something that sprouted out as a whole from homosexual relations. It's a natural disease. What makes it more prevalent in gays is, you know what. By the cancer part, I mean to say, those cancers that are mostly exclusive to lesbians or are more common in them. Of course, all sex is dangerous. But look at the individual prospects here. Where do we find the most STDs? which type of sexual behavior has the highest 'density' of STDs? and there, you get the answer.

I already answered it. There are some diseases that lesbians are more likely to contract. That whole article is based on exclusively the types of difficulties lesbians and bisexual women have to face. That should have cleared out all the misunderstandings.

I excluded the contraceptives here because the subject matter doesn't include that. Using contraceptives will be like a 'cheat' here. In reality, of course, no matter what type of sexual behavior you adapt, tests and contraceptives are a must.

Yes，you can do whatever you like~freedom~

Sorry I was following the flow of the conversation and the only part directly addressing you was the genetic disorders bit, which is the only reason you were quoted. I should have been more clear.

Heart disease kills more people because eating is lot more common than sex. Magic? I think not.

HIV isn't the case here. Black people are more susceptible because they're at the heart of that disease. So there's this already set constant factor of HIVs in their case. It's simple logic. Why can't people even do that?

But the reason gays are more likely to catch an STD is because gays are less likely to use contraceptives. You can't just say "I excluded the contraceptives here because the subject matter doesn't include that." when contraceptives are crucial to STDs. It's like saying "excluding gravity and any other law of physics, why do objects fall when dropped?

Then why do gays not use contraceptive? and to generalize that with just the contraceptives will be a huge mistake. Because a lot of factors involve. Including the anal sex.

I'm not sure if I used the term genetic disorders correctly in my original post. I was referring to things like Down syndrome and the likes. I understand that not all genetic mutations are bad, but I was referring to those congenital diseases and syndromes.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

nat·u·ral

adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial

: usual or expected

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How exactly are genetic disorders unnatural again?

Yes it is very simple, so why are you struggling so much?

Gays tend to only sleep with gays, therefore gays tend to only spread HIV to other gays. So since in the western world HIV was mainly in the LGBT community (due to reasons I've already mentioned) it's obvious that it would then spread faster through that community than any other.

When you roll dice, sometimes you're gonna get snake eyes. It's sad that it happens, and I don't want to sound heartless, but such is nature.