Homosexuality?

[Moses1010]

Is homosexuality natural?

[Pogue]

For some people, it comes naturally, yes. I don't see how 'natural' has any real meaning or relevancy in this case though, we've never judged the merits of much else by how 'natural' it is.

But yeh, its natural, its produced by nature.

[#FF0000]

Science has no idea what makes someone gay. That is, whether it is nature or nurture. That isn't especially relevant to me, though.

But if you mean "is it natural" in some other sense, then yeah, it occurs in nature.

I don't know why this is really relevant at all though... :confused:

[Rjevan]

Yes, why not? For some people it is naturally, for some heterosexuality is natural, but homosexuality is definitely not "unnatural" or a "perversion". There are gay animals, as well, if you mean that.

[Agrippa]

Yes, homosexuality is biological and is a behavior present in almost all documented animal species.

[GPDP]

Even if it wasn't, why would it matter? Homosexuals are people, too, and as such, they are not to be denied their rights and liberties.

The "unnatural" argument is primarily made by bigots seeking some way to disparage gays as being dangerous deviants.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

It's demonstrated in dozens and dozens of species, so yeah.

As for things being 'unnatural' - I'm sure most of the things you have in your house are unnatural. Might wanna throw out your toaster ;)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't even know what natural means. If a beaver makes a dam, it's natural. If we make a nuclear reactor, it's not? To me, it seems like natural is just a buzzword to perpetuate a specific agenda.

If you mean the nature versus nurture debate, I'd say there is evidence it is genetic, and there is little to no evidence to the contrary. To make a claim of certainty that it's genetic is probably a bit presumptuous.

Either way, it doesn't matter. I think the research is important, though. If we can genetically allow people to choose their sexuality, that would be pretty cool, I think. Trying out different sexualities would be pretty neat. Have a friend who makes you wish you were gay? No problem. Want to find everyone attractive instead of just half the population? Done!

I'm serious by the way. Being able to choose your sexuality would be really damn cool. I think it's genetic, though, so that's probably not in the near future.

[Agrippa]

I don't even know what natural means. If a beaver makes a dam, it's natural. If we make a nuclear reactor, it's not? To me, it seems like natural is just a buzzword to perpetuate a specific agenda.

The agenda that teaches that nuclear reactors are more dangerous than beaver dams? :rolleyes:


If we can genetically allow people to choose their sexuality, that would be pretty cool, I think.

If by "cool", you mean "a powerful, dangerous tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie"

[h0m0revolutionary]

Homosexuality is a historically proven natural phenomina present right throughout the animal kingdom. In that sense then it is 'natural'

But im wearly that what you're alluding to that if it were not natural; if it were a choice then that would be a bad thing. It wouldn't regardless of who somebody falls in love with, be it a behaviour choice, a genetically-determined lifestyle or otherwise, there is no room for discrimmination against it. Ergo this debate isn't really valid, unless your opinion is that if homosexuality were a choice, it would be unatural and/or incorrect.

Also note, that homosexuality only covers a very limited amount of people, far greater numbers of people experience same-sex attraction outside of the confine of homosexuality (bisexuality, queer etc.). This i think validates homosexuality to some degree as a completely natural state, present in some, but not all, humans.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As comrades have said, the most important thing is that homosexuality should be defended (and bigotry condemned) no matter what the current trend in science deem it to be.

Homosexual acts are perfectly natural and have been recorded throughout history. "Homosexuality" as we define it now, I believe, is a social creation coming out of class society. Gay identity as we know it is something that has emerged even more recently out of resistance to gay oppression and then the struggle for gay liberation from the late 60s on.

After a revolution there will definitely be homosexuality, but defining this or that as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" will make less and less difference until there is just Sexuality and people can experiment or not with any consenting people they want.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The agenda that teaches that nuclear reactors are more dangerous than beaver dams? :rolleyes:



If by "cool", you mean "a powerful, dangerous tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie"

You could say a lot of things are "cool" but dangerous in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Halting scientific development isn't necessarily desirable just because it can be used improperly.

[SocialPhilosophy]

It's demonstrated in dozens and dozens of species, so yeah.

As for things being 'unnatural' - I'm sure most of the things you have in your house are unnatural. Might wanna throw out your toaster ;)


..My Toaster Isnt Gay

[Il Medico]

Being gay starts in the womb, from all scientific evidence thus far gathered. Homosexuality is absolutely natural. Bi sexuality is also, in fact most people are in the Bi spectrum of human sexuality, rather then exclusively homo or hetero sexual.

[SocialPhilosophy]

Being gay starts in the womb, from all scientific evidence thus far gathered. Homosexuality is absolutely natural. Bi sexuality is also, in fact most people are in the Bi spectrum of human sexuality, rather then exclusively homo or hetero sexual.


Obviously somebody has lost their Mind. nobody knows what really causes it. all we have is theories.

[Tomhet]

Yes, homosexuality is biological and is a behavior present in almost all documented animal species.
this, absolutely.

[Il Medico]

Obviously somebody has lost their Mind. nobody knows what really causes it. all we have is theories.
Obviously someone doesn't know their facts (or grammar, why would you capitalize mind and not Nobody?). There is no one clear reason for homosexuality. However, there has been many studies connecting different parts of the brain to homosexuality. For example, the hypothalamus in straight men is larger then it is in gay men. Straight women also have smaller hypothalamus then straight men. The hypothalamus develops in the womb. cognitive ability or how we think has also been linked to homosexuality, as homosexuals score in the same way as straight women. These as well as have multiple older brothers and hormones have been linked to homosexuality. On the other hand, many scientific studies have proven that the "nurture" theories are baseless. So it is a fact that it starts in the womb and is by no means a choice or a result of being raised a certain way. Thus homosexuality is from birth, fact.
My second statement is from the largest study on human sexuality ever done, the Kinsey report. It found that only 4% of the population was strictly Homosexual or heterosexual. The rest ( 96%) fell somewhere in the Bi range. You really should read up on a subject before you accuse someone of being insane, when they present facts. I recommend you read up on the Kinsey report and watch the documentary "The Making of Me". The latter explores the possible reasons for homosexuality.

[Black Dagger]

As comrades have said, the most important thing is that homosexuality should be defended (and bigotry condemned) no matter what the current trend in science deem it to be.

Homosexual acts are perfectly natural and have been recorded throughout history. "Homosexuality" as we define it now, I believe, is a social creation coming out of class society. Gay identity as we know it is something that has emerged even more recently out of resistance to gay oppression and then the struggle for gay liberation from the late 60s on.

After a revolution there will definitely be homosexuality, but defining this or that as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" will make less and less difference until there is just Sexuality and people can experiment or not with any consenting people they want.

Yes this is worth pointing out. 'Homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' are discursively constituted phenomenon - not transhistorical human or indeed 'natural' categories. Whilst same-sex relationships exist across time and species, homosexuality as we know it does not - the idea that someone is 'a homosexual' or a 'heterosexual' are social categories - like race - that shift over time and so are not bound by 'choice' or 'naturalness'.

[RedAthena1919]

It's natural for me, that's all I need to know. Why that's relevant at all though, is another question..... afterall, is there anything that could actually be said to be "unnatural"?

[EqualityandFreedom]

If something exists it's natural, if it doesn't exist it's nothing, it is a false duality, the term unnatural doesn't even make sense.

[Il Medico]

It's natural for me, that's all I need to know. Why that's relevant at all though, is another question..... afterall, is there anything that could actually be said to be "unnatural"?
Robots and toasters.:laugh:

[teenagebricks]

I don't think anyone is born homosexual, but I don't think anyone is born heterosexual either, it's just a choice that you make when the time comes, and most people don't even consciously make the choice, it just happens. I don't think it even matters though, if you're gay then you're gay, sexuality is like religion, as long as you're not hurting anyone, or forcing anyone else to be gay, then nobody but you has right to have an opinion.

[Il Medico]

I don't think anyone is born homosexual, but I don't think anyone is born heterosexual either, it's just a choice that you make when the time comes, and most people don't even consciously make the choice, it just happens. I don't think it even matters though, if you're gay then you're gay, sexuality is like religion, as long as you're not hurting anyone, or forcing anyone else to be gay, then nobody but you has right to have an opinion.
It is by no means a choice. Your equating of sexuality to religion is like equating race to religion. "I wasn't born black, I chose to be". See how ridiculous you sound? That coupled with the fact that all the scientific evidence is against you makes you extremely foolish. Attitudes like this are the reason there is so much hatred toward the LGBT community. If you pretend it is a choice, then you open up the window of it being an immoral behavior. That bigots will argue should be punished and corrected. :cursing:
Not only is your opinion wrong, it is baseless and extremely ignorant, you should actually look into matters concerning the subject before you open your mouth! (figuratively speaking)

[teenagebricks]

Not a choice? You make it sound like a disability. I'm not pretending it's a choice, I genuinely believe it, it has nothing to do with choosing to be black, that is a ridiculous comparison on so many levels. If you go back and read my post you will notice that I said "most people don't even consciously make the choice, it just happens", therefore you don't "choose to be", you just are, I also didn't deny that homosexuality is natural, I think that it is perfectly natural, I just happen to believe humans are born asexual, in other words, comparing my opinion to that of a bigot is unfounded and offensive.

[Black Dagger]

it's just a choice that you make when the time comes, and most people don't even consciously make the choice, it just happens.

So is it a choice or not?

Like you begin very authoratively and end very ambiguously.

I would argue that 'choice' exists only so far as sexual identity is concerned - where one locates themselves within the contemporary conception of human sexuality (noting again that categories like 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are modern inventions). Beyond that I find it hard to believe that individuals are capable of turning their sexual impulses on and off, where human sexuality is just a matter of an individual choosing between a variety of options or deciding to abandon one or another as time goes by. The logic of that argument is itself gleaned from right-wing anti-gay ideologies, and leads to things like 're-education' camps for 'homosexuals' - where queer folks are sent to be scared straight :rolleyes: I.E. To reconsider their 'choice' in 'lifestyle'.

Note: I'm not trying to say you are right-wing or that you are a homophobe.

[Aeval]

It's not really a choice, in the same way that no aspect your personality or being is a 'choice', so it is 'natural', still doesn't mean you were born like it though. It's a huge, complex mix of biological factors, primary socialisation and also the fact that people form complex relationships based on more than simply the fact that they want to fuck, which is why someone can be completely utterly straight their whole life and then suddenly when they're 60 odd realise they're in love with someone of the same gender. Does that make them inherently bi? No, they might never have met someone who made them feel like that and thus have stayed 'straight' until they died.

Most of the purely biological 'tests' for sexuality barely work for women and a lot of men too. You could have someone who ticks all the current indicators and none the less has the 'wrong' sexuality, if sexuality had a purely biological cause then it would predictable and uniform, it's not. It's complex and unique to each person. People aren't born gay, or straight/bi/queer/other, but it seems foolish to suggest it's chosen. I mean, I haven't 'chosen' something as simple as what my favourite colour is so the idea that you could chose your sexuality is just bizarre.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't know why this is really relevant at all though...The OP did not refer to the debate on homosexuality, merely asked about whether or not it is natural (by which they probably meant 'genetic'). I'm sure that the origins of sexuality is an interesting question from a scientific viewpoint.

[Il Medico]

Not a choice? You make it sound like a disability. I'm not pretending it's a choice, I genuinely believe it, it has nothing to do with choosing to be black, that is a ridiculous comparison on so many levels. If you go back and read my post you will notice that I said "most people don't even consciously make the choice, it just happens", therefore you don't "choose to be", you just are, I also didn't deny that homosexuality is natural, I think that it is perfectly natural, I just happen to believe humans are born asexual, in other words, comparing my opinion to that of a bigot is unfounded and offensive.
Your beliefs are wrong. People are born homosexual, they don't chose to be so, not even subconsciously, you make it sound like a metal disability. All I said is it is natural and from birth. There is no difference in being born homosexual then being born black. Again, and I'll reiterate this, you are wrong so it really doesn't matter what you think.

EDIT: Btw, your arguments are offensive. Me calling you on your baseless misconceptions, which are the same as the ones bigots have, is by no means offensive. Just because your misconception don't lead you to hate, doesn't mean that they aren't wrong, or offensive to the LGBT community.

[teenagebricks]

So is it a choice or not?

Like you begin very authoratively and end very ambiguously.
I can't help but think I have been misinterpreted, all I really meant was that I don't think that sexual preference in human beings is predetermined. I couldn't tell you with 100% certainty that it is a choice, I think it is though, a natural choice. Since I've seen no evidence to swing my opinion either way, I'm really just going on what I think makes most sense.

Your beliefs are wrong. People are born homosexual, they don't chose to be so, not even subconsciously, you make it sound like a metal disability.
No, because people don't choose to have mental disabilities, not even subconsciously, that would be retarded (excuse the pun). They are just beliefs, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that you are right, and the same goes for me, and since my beliefs aren't hurting anyone you can get off that high horse of yours.

[Il Medico]

I can't help but think I have been misinterpreted, all I really meant was that I don't think that sexual preference in human beings is predetermined. I couldn't tell you with 100% certainty that it is a choice, I think it is though, a natural choice. Since I've seen no evidence to swing my opinion either way, I'm really just going on what I think makes most sense.
One, I presented evidence that homosexuality is linked to developments in the womb. And two the thing that makes the most sense is that being gay is just like being white or black, it is from birth.

[teenagebricks]

Why does it make most sense? Maybe to you it makes most sense, but not to me, there is evidence to counter your evidence, and I'm sure there is evidence to counter that evidence, most evidence is actually pretty useless and I gave up relying on scientists and theorists a long time ago. It's a matter of opinion really, and differing opinions make the world a better place. So unless you want to run up into a Mosque and tell the Muslims that they've got it all wrong, don't bother trying to change my opinion, and enjoy yours.:)

[Il Medico]

Why does it make most sense? Maybe to you it makes most sense, but not to me, there is evidence to counter your evidence, and I'm sure there is evidence to counter that evidence, most evidence is actually pretty useless and I gave up relying on scientists and theorists a long time ago. It's a matter of opinion really, and differing opinions make the world a better place. So unless you want to run up into a Mosque and tell the Muslims that they've got it all wrong, don't bother trying to change my opinion, and enjoy yours.:)
Again with the equating of sexual preference to religion! aggghhhh! Again, there is no evidence to say that people chose homosexuality, in any fashion. There are many things wrong with your opinion.
1. If it is subconscious like you say, then it is a result of the Id. The Id also makes us have sexual feeling about our parents, however, our super ego suppress this. If you think it is the Id, then religious bigots can use that to say that gays superego should repress this deviation from the norm.
2. Consciousness and the ability to think, is the realm of humans alone, however, homosexuality is well documented in nature.
3. If you say it is a choice, then the results are obvious.
4. Not basing your opinions on science is like basing your opinions on the bible. You will have an ill informed opinion, that will offend people.
5. It is by no means a matter of opinion. No more so then a heliocentric model of the solar system is. If I believe the earth is the center of the universe, despite evidence to the contrary, how am I at all intelligent? I am of course basing this on the idea that you have some sort of intellect.
6. Last, when did you become straight? (I am assuming your straight because of your complete lack of knowledge on the issue). I never became Bi, I just am. I wasn't born asexual, my id did not beat my super ego on liking men. I have always been Bi, whether I liked, or admitted it.

Love,
Captain Jack.

[teenagebricks]

Again with the equating of sexual preference to religion! aggghhhh! Again, there is no evidence to say that people chose homosexuality, in any fashion. There are many things wrong with your opinion.
It's an opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, unless you're completely intolerant.

2. Consciousness and the ability to think, is the realm of humans alone,
Animals can't think?

however, homosexuality is well documented in nature.
Correct, hence I said homosexuality is natural.

4. Not basing your opinions on science is like basing your opinions on the bible.
Here's the problem, science is often wrong, if I blindly believed everything I was told by scientists I would have opinions which contridict each other. I didn't say that I don't base my opinions on science, I absolutely do, but when there are different scientific arguments conflicting with each other, I simply decide for myself which one to go with.

You will have an ill informed opinion, that will offend people.
Their problem. I'm doing no harm, people are oversensitive.

6. Last, when did you become straight? (I am assuming your straight because of your complete lack of knowledge on the issue).
No, you are assuming that I'm straight because we disagree on the issue of homosexuality and since you are bisexual you must be right. I'll leave it for you to decide whether or not I'm straight, but I'll give you a clue, my opinions on homosexuality are based on personal experience.

[ZeroNowhere]

Again with the equating of sexual preference to religion! aggghhhh!Um, wasn't he comparing his opinion to religion?


It's an opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, unless you're completely intolerant.Yes, but he was saying that your opinion was incorrect, not that you having an opinion is bad.


It's a matter of opinion really, and differing opinions make the world a better place.Not especially, if there's not sufficient evidence either way, this justifies agnosticism until further evidence is found, rather than supporting either side.

[teenagebricks]

Not especially, if there's not sufficient evidence either way, this justifies agnosticism until further evidence is found, rather than supporting either side.
Very well said, and exactly my opinion on the matter. There is so much evidence on either side of the argument that it becomes hard to know what to believe. Until anything is proven, opinions will be formed.

[Revy]

I think most LGBT people (myself included) have given up trying to convince the heterosexual world that we are "natural" - in the sense that we were born this way and did not adopt it as a "lifestyle choice". I do not think that homophobia would somehow end if homosexuality was seen as natural - if anything, it would then be called a genetic anomaly, birth defect, etc (I do think there are many homophobes who already believe this, or are open to the idea).....people do not stop hating whatever group because they know them to be "born that way".

Gay people want acceptance, respect, and a future where they can be open and honest about their attraction to the same sex, without being oppressed and subject to harassment.

For the record, I KNOW I was born gay, been attracted to the same sex ever since I was 11, around puberty, had no choice in the matter.

[SocialPhilosophy]

Obviously someone doesn't know their facts (or grammar, why would you capitalize mind and not Nobody?). There is no one clear reason for homosexuality. However, there has been many studies connecting different parts of the brain to homosexuality. For example, the hypothalamus in straight men is larger then it is in gay men. Straight women also have smaller hypothalamus then straight men. The hypothalamus develops in the womb. cognitive ability or how we think has also been linked to homosexuality, as homosexuals score in the same way as straight women. These as well as have multiple older brothers and hormones have been linked to homosexuality. On the other hand, many scientific studies have proven that the "nurture" theories are baseless. So it is a fact that it starts in the womb and is by no means a choice or a result of being raised a certain way. Thus homosexuality is from birth, fact.
My second statement is from the largest study on human sexuality ever done, the Kinsey report. It found that only 4% of the population was strictly Homosexual or heterosexual. The rest ( 96%) fell somewhere in the Bi range. You really should read up on a subject before you accuse someone of being insane, when they present facts. I recommend you read up on the Kinsey report and watch the documentary "The Making of Me". The latter explores the possible reasons for homosexuality.


So.. you summarized my one Sentence with a Paragraph. also, being a grammar Nazi isnt cool. AlSo, iF i WanT to CaPitAliZe random letters, i can. and i will.

[SocialPhilosophy]

I don't think anyone is born homosexual, but I don't think anyone is born heterosexual either, it's just a choice that you make when the time comes.


so... one day you just jump off the bench and onto a team?

[Dr Mindbender]

considering homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom, and animals are incapable of making sentient choices over their sexual behaviour i would say thats a pretty big case in arguing for it's naturality.

[SecondLife]

In most cases homosexuality comes with born (I know this because I have many homosexual friends,womans and mans), and very few percent it can also be later choice. Of course it is natural, because homosexuality exist also in animals and also in first human. But more interesting was association between homosexuality and communism. Why communism was intervened to ethics and morality? Why for communism was at all important what kind of things are natural and what kind of things aren't natural. This is associated with some fear or unsteadiness, fear to counter-revolution and fear where communist itself really don't know what communism means and then suspects all thing that he don't understand.
I really don't see any other noetic explanation to this than people who start to make communism were idiots and bastards, but not communism itself. But today they all see their mistake and fix it............
............but stop.....of course, this fear isn't nothing more than rudiment of capitalist-feodal or at all from old culture. This fear was also in capitalist states and is there also today, especially in fascist movement.

[Tommy1990]

Science has no idea what makes someone gay. That is, whether it is nature or nurture.

It's both. It can be a result of environmental factors, but it is also a genetic process. Interestingly, the more older brothers you have (i.e. the more boys that have been in your mother's womb before you), the more likely you are to be gay.

[Manifesto]

In some cases a person might not actually be gay but, when they are it is usually from high estrogen levels.

[cb9's_unity]

Someone may have mentioned it but the problem with most of whats being talked about on this thread only really applies to male homosexual's. For men homosexuality is beginning to be linked with areas's of the brain and as well as with some of the chemistry of the womb. However most of this research simply doesn't apply to females. Even in nature most species male populations are about 10% gay where most other species contain almost no lesbians. Of course problems with a lot of this is that there just hasn't been that much research on what makes a lesbian become a lesbian.

But basically this whole issue is about how highly the government such restrict a purely social aspect of our lives. Also I don't see gay rights for men increasing without rights for lesbians increasing also, so my paragraph above will hopefully be irrelevant.

[teenagebricks]

So.. you summarized my one Sentence with a Paragraph. also, being a grammar Nazi isnt cool. AlSo, iF i WanT to CaPitAliZe random letters, i can. and i will.
Please don't, it's annoying, and childish. Regardless, I think you missed the point of what CaptianJack was trying to say.

so... one day you just jump off the bench and onto a team?
Don't be so stupid, it isn't that simple, like I said, for the vast majority of gay people it isn't a conscious decision they get to make, it is one that their body makes and most of the time they have absolutely no control over it. Whether you believe that people are gay from birth or not, there certainly isn't any "jumping onto a team" involved.

[Il Medico]

So.. you summarized my one Sentence with a Paragraph. also, being a grammar Nazi isnt cool. AlSo, iF i WanT to CaPitAliZe random letters, i can. and i will.
I was presenting you with facts, the facts which your were calling me insane because you did not know them. And I am an English Major, grammar nazi is in my job title.

[Il Medico]

I think most LGBT people (myself included) have given up trying to convince the heterosexual world that we are "natural" - in the sense that we were born this way and did not adopt it as a "lifestyle choice". I do not think that homophobia would somehow end if homosexuality was seen as natural - if anything, it would then be called a genetic anomaly, birth defect, etc (I do think there are many homophobes who already believe this, or are open to the idea).....people do not stop hating whatever group because they know them to be "born that way".

Gay people want acceptance, respect, and a future where they can be open and honest about their attraction to the same sex, without being oppressed and subject to harassment.

For the record, I KNOW I was born gay, been attracted to the same sex ever since I was 11, around puberty, had no choice in the matter.
I agree homophobes will always hate gays. However, the idea that it is from birth and not a choice, will make LGBT issues what they should be, a civil rights one, instead of a argument on morals. The more people realize that we can no more help being the way we are, then Obama can being black, then I think our rights will be enhanced greatly. There will always be racist, but the numbers have decreased due to general knowledge and acceptance. I believe it will be the same with LGBT community.

[kharacter]

There will always be racist, but the numbers have decreased due to general knowledge and acceptance. I believe it will be the same with LGBT community.

I thoroughly agree. I think it will be the human rights movement of our generation, and if all goes well we should be able to look back on the current prejudice with disgust.

[NecroCommie]

Damn! I am tired, and I did not read the thread at all!

BUTT!!!!

Homosexuals can have sex, make love and do all the other perverty stuff we straight people do! And more!!! Why not? It is OK for me... dont get wrong that "for me" part, its not "into me"... You know? I just dont get it why homos could not be as kinky as we heteros are!

God damn some heterosexuals are perverts! Dear god, father of all that was holy!!! Peeking and imagining stuff in the shower... Measuring in their minds whose dingy is the biggest. Oh, if it were just the shower, but heterosexual mens are constantly horny. Perhaps you women should just... Ok I am not going to finish that one.

[Agrippa]

However most of this research simply doesn't apply to females. Even in nature most species male populations are about 10% gay where most other species contain almost no lesbians.

Even if evidence was provided for this claim, I would still be very reluctant to believe that. In fact, I'd be much more inclined to believe that those who recorded the evidence had some sort of observational bias or else there was some crucial conditional factor such as environment, or at the very least a freak coincidence. When I was younger I had aspirations of being an ameture primatologist, so I know for a fact that lesbian behaviors have been observed in all the greast apes, and that in bonobos, lesbian behavior is a cornerstone of troop society. I have also observed lesbian behavior between dogs firsthand. Also the idea that lesbianism would be only a fluke behavior among humans created by certain social conditions, and not male homosexuality, seems even more unlikely than the right-wing notion that all homosexuality is learned. Also, given all of the hermaphrodites and transmen I've met, and the sort of fluid division that exists between those social groups and lesbians, what you're saying just seems really improbable.

[Tomhet]

I'd also like to add I do not believe that 'human nature' should ultimately tie mankind down and restrict potential. What is human nature, anyways? can one of us make an accurate depiction? It is my belief that human nature is to substain oneself through nourishment, reproduction, and nothing more. And could you disagree with me? No one man can define human nature, it is a vast, almost absurd concept which at times seems fabricated.

[Pawn Power]

I really don't know what 'natural' means in this sense? Even if individuals made the 'choice,' what makes people's choices 'unnatural'?

[SocialPhilosophy]

Please don't, it's annoying, and childish. Regardless, I think you missed the point of what CaptianJack was trying to say.

Don't be so stupid, it isn't that simple, like I said, for the vast majority of gay people it isn't a conscious decision they get to make, it is one that their body makes and most of the time they have absolutely no control over it. Whether you believe that people are gay from birth or not, there certainly isn't any "jumping onto a team" involved.


i believe he said


its a choice to be made when the time comes.

or something to that affect. also, All i said is where we think gayness comes from are only theories. i didnt say any of them were wrong.

[Trystan]

It seems natural enough to me. Whether it is or not, doesn't really matter . . . there are far more interesting and important questions out there.

[Revolution 9]

Whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (whatever that term means), is irrelevant. What is important is that individuals have the right to do what they want as long as they do not intrude on the rights of others. If two adults of the same sex decide that they are in love, who are you to intervene?

[-marx-]

Yes, why not? For some people it is naturally, for some heterosexuality is natural, but homosexuality is definitely not "unnatural" or a "perversion". There are gay animals, as well, if you mean that.

Of course, we are animals (the fith ape) so there are ONLY gay animals.:D

Nothing wrong with homosexuality BTW, nothing at all! Those bigots that say other wise can fuck off and die!

[rosa-rl]

I am in the bisexual catagory but I have lived as strait and as a lesbian. This seems quite natural to me and part of how relationships are formed. It seems to me a shame that people are socially restricted from deeply exploring their sexuality - everyone wants to catagorize. If I had to say what I am I would say that I am 'gender-fucked'.

[hammer and sickle]

1 in every 10 animals is gay according to modern society's standards. Yes it is completely natural! Any human being has the right to love any other human being.

[Fireonmyhand]

How can it not be natural?
Its everywhere in nature.it has been since the beggining of time and its intergrated into the human way of entertaintment.Im greek and even though my people dont often admit it we practically invented homosexuality as a cultular phenomenon and im actually pretty proud of it!
It was passed on as a sin by the christian leaders according to their roman less friendly policy towards it and so in the years since the late 20th century it was a huge taboo .
This was combined with the idea of one true love by the romantics which has resulted in this cultural abomination where straights and gays are considered 2 sepperate groups !!!!!!


But yes homosexuallity is natural yeah :) and its both generated by genetic code of the person (although i think this plays a really small part ) and by their phycological expiriences.
And of course by the fact that humans enjoy f**king :)

[Il Medico]

I am in the bisexual catagory but I have lived as strait and as a lesbian. This seems quite natural to me and part of how relationships are formed. It seems to me a shame that people are socially restricted from deeply exploring their sexuality - everyone wants to catagorize. If I had to say what I am I would say that I am 'gender-fucked'.
I completely agree. I don't quite get the taboo of exploring sexuality. Or the need to label people as gay or straight. My philosophy is best summed up in a quote from my namesake in Doctor Who.


"You people and your categories" - Captain Jack Harkness

[Klaatu]

This whole thing about homosexuality is about ancient religious programming. The Bible condemns homosexuality (so some say) but we must understand that, in antiquity, the human species was in dire need of sustenance for it's very survival. Tribes needed to produce offspring, and it so happens that (man-man or woman-woman) sexual encounters did NOT produce offspring.

But in our crowded (nearing 7 billion humans) world, I think homosexual unions are a practical panacea to the ever-burgeoning mass of humanity, since there is no reproduction involved.

Good points, Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, and Kevis Escobar

[The Feral Underclass]

People in this thread keep making assertions one way or the other with some certainty for their opinion.

There is no scientific evidence that concludes either it being "nature" or "nurture" or indeed a combination of the two. There are several other theories about genetic defection and hormonal imbalance, for the record.

But in any case, we cannot say for sure what causes homosexuality. Only that it has existed since the dawn of recorded time and is not a phenomenon specific to the human species.

[Revy]

People in this thread keep making assertions one way or the other with some certainty for their opinion.

There is no scientific evidence that concludes either it being "nature" or "nurture" or indeed a combination of the two. There are several other theories about genetic defection and hormonal imbalance.

But in any case, we cannot say for sure what causes homosexuality. Only that it has existed since the dawn of recorded time and is not a phenomenon specific to the human species.

Would you say the same for heterosexuality?

[The Feral Underclass]

Would you say the same for heterosexuality?

Well yes. Unless you can show me irrefutable scientific evidence that explains why people are heterosexual. Clearly the most strongest theory is that it is an evolutionary development designed to ensure the survival of the species, which is commonly accepted. I'm certain though that this isn't actually proven beyond a doubt by scientific evidence. It's more of an assumption.

Why? What's your point?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Indeed, there's an awful lot of homsexuality among the animals -- which is not easy to explain in evolutionary terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[The Accomplice]

I beleive it is natural behavior. Homosexuality is also very common among some mammals in the animal kingdom.

I found this article a while back about two male penguins who who hatched an abandoned egg and parented the adopted chick. Very fascinating stuff.

www(dot)dailymail(dot)co(dot)uk(slash)news(slash)w orldnews(slash)article-1190747(slash)My-dads-Gay-penguins-parents(dot)htm


Even if homosexuality is unnatural to humans, it doesn't mean we should treat them differently or harshly. They are still humans after all.

[Forward Union]

Is homosexuality natural?

Given that ; Nature: 1) Existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature. And given that It occurs in pretty much every species... it's clearly natural...

[Klaatu]

I read somewhere that every human goes through three normal stages of psycho-sexual development,
starting at birth.

(1) 0-8 years a child is preoccupied with himself/herself (narcissistic stage)
(2) 9-11 years a preadolescent is preoccupied with the same sex (homosexual stage)
(3) 12-up years an adolescent, up to adult, is preoccupied with the opposite sex (heterosexual stage)

The ages are approximate. So then everyone was a homosexual around their preteen years. This is considered normal. The theory also suggests that adult homosexuals are in an arrested stage of normal psycho-sexual development.

[Black Dagger]

(1) 0-8 years a child is preoccupied with himself/herself (narcissistic stage)
(2) 9-11 years a preadolescent is preoccupied with the same sex (homosexual stage)
(3) 12-up years an adolescent, up to adult, is preoccupied with the opposite sex (heterosexual stage)

This is psycho-sexual socialisation, it's not the same as sexuality or sexual desire - it's about the unfolding of a humans socialisation from childhood. Same-sex behaviour is not the same as same-sex attraction, children going through development stages characterised by a preoccupation with 'the same sex' is not a direct expression of sexuality - i mean, are young boys staying away from girls because they are 'temporarily homosexual' or because of socialisation - the girls all have cooties etc. I'm not sure if the theory you're describing is meant to be taken in the way you are suggesting, if so then clearly it is rubbish.

[Salabra]

Yes this is worth pointing out. ‘Homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ are discursively constituted phenomenon - not transhistorical human or indeed ‘natural’ categories. Whilst same-sex relationships exist across time and species, homosexuality as we know it does not - the idea that someone is ‘a homosexual’ or a ‘heterosexual’ are social categories - like race - that shift over time and so are not bound by ‘choice’ or ‘naturalness’.
Exactly — and, by way of illustration, let me offer a little vignette:

Imagine if, after “Tuesdays with Morrie,” you had “Wednesdays with Plato.”

On this particular Wednesday, Plato rises and breakfasts, then goes off to the gymnasion for a morning’s teaching. After an hour lecturing on the ‘Forms,’ he ends up on the couch with the newest student (male, of course — the Athenians didn’t think women could even think, let alone be educated).

In the afternoon, Plato goes home and “does his husbandly duty” by having sex with his wife in the gynaikeion (women’s rooms, harem < Arabic ‘haram — out of bounds’).

At dinner that evening, you say, “But look here, Plato old chap, you had it off with a young man this morning and a woman this afternoon — I say, are you gay, straight or bi?” And Plato looks at you, mutters the Ancient Greek equivalent of “WTF are you babbling about?” and passes you another goblet of the viscous muck that passed for wine in those days.

This point — that in a different time, as Black Dagger says, the categories either didn’t exist or were defined differently — is incredibly difficult for modern Greeks, for example, to understand. I once had quite a scrap with a couple of good Orthodox Greek lads over the 2004 film “Alexander.” They were totally unwilling to face the fact that the “manly” Alexander could have had male lovers — in their eyes it diminished his stature as a hero and as a Greek!

[Salabra]

Attitudes like this are the reason there is so much hatred toward the LGBT community. If you pretend it is a choice, then you open up the window of it being an immoral behavior. That bigots will argue should be punished and corrected.
By the same token, arguing that it’s not (to some degree) a choice leaves you open to the Nazi solution for ‘mental defectives,’ i.e., “if you can’t ‘cure’ them and turn them into ‘normal’ members of society, you might as well get rid of them.”

[Il Medico]

“Wednesdays with Plato.”

On this particular Wednesday, Plato rises and breakfasts, then goes off to the gymnasion for a morning’s teaching. After an hour lecturing on the ‘Forms,’ he ends up on the couch with the newest student (male, of course — the Athenians didn’t think women could even think, let alone be educated).

In the afternoon, Plato goes home and “does his husbandly duty” by having sex with his wife in the gynaikeion (women’s rooms, harem < Arabic ‘haram — out of bounds’).

At dinner that evening, you say, “But look here, Plato old chap, you had it off with a young man this morning and a woman this afternoon — I say, are you gay, straight or bi?” And Plato looks at you, mutters the Ancient Greek equivalent of “WTF are you babbling about?” and passes you another goblet of the viscous muck that passed for wine in those days.
This perfectly displays how incredibly stupid it is to try to label people. Labels like gay, straight and bi are a phenomenon of society. Our society is centered around the dualism of everything being one way or another. Things are good or evil, black or white, gay or straight. Because of this, anything that doesn't fit one way or the other (which is pretty much everything) is attacked and degraded. This causes a fear of showing individuality and leads to repression of things outside the societal norm. There is no real validity to any of these categories. They are no more real then your childhood imaginary friend. I can only hope that our society can get past this.

[BabylonHoruv]

..My Toaster Isnt Gay

Mine is.

[Klaatu]

:blink: That's a load of crap. Where did you read this "theory"?

Read that a long time ago. Sorry, don't have a reference.

I didn't say I agreed with these theories, just throwing them out there for others to decide.

[Revy]

Now I want a pink toaster :thumbup:

[BabylonHoruv]

It is by no means a choice. Your equating of sexuality to religion is like equating race to religion. "I wasn't born black, I chose to be". See how ridiculous you sound? That coupled with the fact that all the scientific evidence is against you makes you extremely foolish. Attitudes like this are the reason there is so much hatred toward the LGBT community. If you pretend it is a choice, then you open up the window of it being an immoral behavior. That bigots will argue should be punished and corrected. :cursing:
Not only is your opinion wrong, it is baseless and extremely ignorant, you should actually look into matters concerning the subject before you open your mouth! (figuratively speaking)


Race is more of a choice than you might think. Because of the way it is socially constructed.

You can't really tell by looking at someone if they are black, arabic, Australian Aborigine, Latino, Pacific Islander, Punjabi, or several other races which all look similar to a white American. I am sure that someone could choose to portray themself as a different race than the one they were born into if they wished to. Race is also a remarkably fluid category. until relatively recently Jews were not considered to be White in the US, now they are. Sexuality is actually similarly fluid, with 6 degrees on the kinsey scale just what level of attraction to the same sex is considered to be "queer" is something that changes with the times.

[BabylonHoruv]

^^^Indeed, there's an awful lot of homsexuality among the animals -- which is not easy to explain in evolutionary terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals


It's easier than you'd think. In overcrowded conditions it is preferable for the sex drive to manifest itself in a way which will not lead to offspring.

[Klaatu]

"This is psycho-sexual socialisation, it's not the same as sexuality or sexual desire - it's about the unfolding of a humans socialisation from childhood. Same-sex behaviour is not the same as same-sex attraction, children going through development stages characterised by a preoccupation with 'the same sex' is not a direct expression of sexuality - i mean, are young boys staying away from girls because they are 'temporarily homosexual' or because of socialisation - the girls all have cooties etc. I'm not sure if the theory you're describing is meant to be taken in the way you are suggesting, if so then clearly it is rubbish."

I did not mean to imply that this was about sexual activity. Children generally do not experience the same
level or type of "sexual" (or for that matter "erotic") behavior as teens and adults, anyway. Anything they may
actually do along those lines, (such as "playing doctor") may be considered to be normal curiosity, not actually what might be considered mature erotic desire.

So you are correct. I meant this exactly as you've described.

[Klaatu]

BabylonHoruv

The categories you are describing (Jews, Arabs, Islanders, etc) are not races. That is because the most accurate definition of "race" is not skin color. For example, there are people in India having very dark skin,
yet they are classified as caucasian.

The "race" of a human is defined by the shape/profile of the skull. There are three primary categories: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. (Australoid race is considered to be a fourth category.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings

[ev]

Nothing is wrong with homosexuality, homosexuality is natural - this is evident by the fact there are homosexual human as well as other animals, "natural" sexual preference (the sexual preference that comes naturally) isn't a choice, rather we are born with such sexual preferences or develop them through adolescence, I think it is just a form of neurotypicalism and a non-neurotypicalism, however in this case the "neurotypical" person is the heterosexual and the non-neurotypical person is the homosexual. I support this with the fact that it's statisticly typical for males to be heterosexuals.

Again there is nothing wrong with this, we are all unique and i think gay culture is an very interesting social culture, it allows us to explore human sexuality and sexual identity in general just through itself.

I hope i haven't offended anyone with this point of view..

[Il Medico]

Now I want a pink toaster :thumbup:
Me too! Hot pink.

[Il Medico]

...there are still people opposed to homosexuality in 2009? It's actually still an issue?

Well that's depressing.
There will always be bigots. And if you're wondering how opposed to homosexuality and homosexual equality some still are, then just look at California, Florida, and Arizona. They all banned gay marriage last election. It is truly sad. :(

[Klaatu]

There will always be bigots. And if you're wondering how opposed to homosexuality and homosexual equality some still are, then just look at California, Florida, and Arizona. They all banned gay marriage last election. It is truly sad. :(

Could this be because of the huge influx of (voting) Catholic Hispanic immigrants in those states?

Just a thought.

[Il Medico]

Could this be because of the huge influx of (voting) Catholic Hispanic immigrants in those states?

Just a thought.
I don't know if you could blame one religious group, or ethic group (as the conservatives did). In California the Mormons had real influence. In Arizona, the are a lot of conservatives, and in Florida, well... Florida is just Florida.

[Klaatu]

I wonder why the Mormons felt as though they had to interfere with California Prop 8, condemning gay marriage. Perhaps a payback for the fact that their core belief, polygamy, had been outlawed? (Some of them still practice that, in secret.) Hypocrites they are.

[Klaatu]

Another thing that burns my ass, are the U.S. conservatives, who tout hetero-marriage (something which is "un-natural" itself, in that animals do not get "married") yet practice divorce without compunction. For example, Newt Gingrich serving his cancer-stricken wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital. Or Rush Limbaugh, twice-divorced, college dropout. "Family-values?" :confused:

[Cheung Mo]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks worked tirelessly to liberate homosexuals and women in the Soviet Union from the shackles of the clergy and the bourgeoisie. All this progress was undone under Stalin's regime, and as a result, homophobia and misogyny continue to run rampant in the Soviet Union.

If liberal boards are willing to ban users for expressing anti-gay sentiments, Revolutionary Left should go one step further and IP block them from viewing the boards.

As for fucking Mor(m)ons, they're freedom hating bastards and bigots who have fought for every injustice imaginable and who have deprived my cousin of the right to see his own fucking daughter. They are not decent folks.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Florida is a home for many bourgeois and gusano. Consider that Right-wing Cuban are riches (such as Bacardi), it no surprising that Florida did not allow the gay marriage.(Gusano is Right-wing Cuban living in Florida.)
We Floridian had struggle to form leftist stronghold in Florida, we still have not reach there yet.

[Il Medico]

Florida is a home for many bourgeois and gusano. Consider that Right-wing Cuban are riches (such as Bacardi), it no surprising that Florida did not allow the gay marriage.(Gusano is Right-wing Cuban living in Florida.)
We Floridian had struggle to form leftist stronghold in Florida, we still have not reach there yet.
Indeed there is no real leftist community here. Brian Moore and I are the only two leftist in Springhill. :( And Moore isn't even a Marxist, just a Social Democrat. However, he has expressed a few times that he agrees with Marx on some important issues.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Of course it's natural. Everything is natural, the wrod 'natural' is an irrevelant term. Spartan's used to make the young military recruits have sex with the seniors, as a way of male bonding. Im sure this is not the only case of something like this. This is what most likely started homosexuality. Besides, why ask that question?

[crazytaxi]

Are you asking if it’s natural or socially acceptable? You could argue the case that everything that happens is natural. When I need guidance I do tend to look to nature for the answer, and it is commonly know that other animals besides humans have an attraction to the same sex so it is undoubtedly natural.
Is it socially acceptable? As we mature as a species I believe it is becoming more socially acceptable. I think that in a primitive society fighting for survival it would be common for the members of that society to find homosexuality unacceptable as it does not aid the reproduction and survival of the species (but nature is never perfectly efficient is it?). In today’s society I think people only believe same sex relationships are wrong because of ignorance, we are a thriving species and we have no reason to entertain such perspectives, do we? At this stage in the development of the human species we should be above that and able to accept our fellow human beings for what they are.

[BabylonHoruv]

BabylonHoruv

The categories you are describing (Jews, Arabs, Islanders, etc) are not races. That is because the most accurate definition of "race" is not skin color. For example, there are people in India having very dark skin,
yet they are classified as caucasian.

The "race" of a human is defined by the shape/profile of the skull. There are three primary categories: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. (Australoid race is considered to be a fourth category.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings)

racist

[SocialPhilosophy]

racist

Lol. He is a Racist because he knows people are inherently different?

[BabylonHoruv]

Lol. He is a Racist because he knows people are inherently different?

That would be on e way to define it yes. I was actually calling him a racist on account of having that deep a knowledge of racial theory. Much as someone with a deep knowledge of astrological theory might be called an astrologist.

[Klaatu]

Originally Posted by SocialPhilosophy
Lol. He is a Racist because he knows people are inherently different?

That would be on e way to define it yes. I was actually calling him a racist on account of having that deep a knowledge of racial theory. Much as someone with a deep knowledge of astrological theory might be called an astrologist.


Gotta remember that :lol: