The debate "Homosexuality is natural and should not be condemned." was started by
June 16, 2015, 8:09 am.
115 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 45 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
lararea posted 1 argument, Damn3d posted 1 argument, lara16 posted 1 argument, ScarletandRose posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 6 arguments, stantinou93 posted 1 argument, Mr_Anonymous posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, arsonfly posted 1 argument, Foreverduke9 posted 1 argument, nickc123 posted 1 argument, sloanstar1000 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
R3dD0g posted 5 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 1 argument, daigunder35 posted 1 argument, Exirdraz posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
lararea, PsychDave, Damn3d, I_Voyager, lara16, invincible_01, Sosocratese, ScarletandRose, stantinou93, INDIA, amanofprogress, Mathew, Upbeatethan, Argumention, keyboardwarrior, justicepanda77, ChonCunningham, alexithymia, PhoenixF1re, Mr_Anonymous, arsonfly, clemnlawrence, vinnytragz, BernieSanders4pres, Shi, Foreverduke9, Afshin, Girl101, denno27, ari_pooya, dylan21502, laurafuna, nickc123, roy, Skeetc15, sloanstar1000, erinroy1994, DeliriousMadam, Yuki_Amayane, amtvj, Sooraj, Spring, DanielleR123, BennieBenston, Klowrig22, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Gman119, pajrc1234 and 67 visitors agree.
toughgamerjerry, Flaming_Butt_Tart_42, raz, DavidStuff777, kyaah, kay_joey1101, Ashna, Georgi_ZKL24, R3dD0g, daigunder35, futurelawyer192, blackbattiger, sabrina, Alp4president, ScreamingEagle, Vander, AstroSpace, musejay1, Exirdraz, nwenn24, Bodaciouslady16, Abraham, Musstta, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, Bestforevr, dotdotdot, Cross, Kamal, Hellrazor, steady_current, jjrocks1738 and 14 visitors disagree.
You have explained how you define natural to be different than everyone else uses the word, but you have yet to explain why homosexuality is not natural. Even if we ignore that it is found in nature, homosexuality is found in every culture regardless of how violently or intolerantly they are treated. What makes it unnatural when it is obviously something is found in people all over the world.
and as to defecate was taking the original Latin word meaning of purifying one self from impurities.
I was replying to nick 123 first of all . second because some animals take on what we call homosexuality behavior dose not make them homosexual like you said it is just accepted can't be defined. only be seen as animal behavior. natural in human terms is how things should be animalistic terms is what all animals of the same breed do and have in common. what is defined as questionable are how they go about certain things but differently like eating your baby or pulling a tick out of your butt with your mouth or having sexual relations with a young breed. is it natural no because many animals go about it in different ways not the same is it independent animal behavior yes because they are all not the same like us so we should not compare our self as an animals.
exi, wth? really?
your argument was that animals didn't know the name of the things that they were doing therefore it wasn't natural. I was pointing out how stupid that argument was.
if something exists in nature, it's natural by definition, it doesn't matter whether a rabbit can comprehend that concept or not.
One of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever dealt with.
give me a reason that a rabbit understands defecating to the rabbit its an act of relief not seen as natural or acceptable if that's your meaning of natural.
your argument is that animals don't know the word homosexuality so it's not natural... a rabbit doesn't understand the word defaecate so pooping isn't natural. just gibberish...
taking your side we are animals I would like to say animals can't define them self only act on what they are stimulating so they don't see them self as homosexual only we do what they do is an act of nature to keep their species going. so for animals homosexuality is not seen only an urge to be left as is. like a tickle is it really a tickle or is it small portion of pain? to an animal tickle does not exist only pain dose tickle is an error taken by our minds taken as laughter like most errors/jokes that make us laugh.
It is natural. There are numerous amounts of species besides humans that engage in homosexual relations, and thats about as natural as it can get. No im not saying there acts are animal like, but that it is something thats not just a trend or a phase, if you cannot help it, it was natural
Can someone please explain to me why it is wrong...
The main one would be the health reasons cited as the reason for not condoning cannibalism and eating feces. Statistics prove that std's are more prevalent among the homosexual community.
Kind of a weak argument but, that's what I got. Lol
I was explaining why we condemn the specific acts you referenced. We obviously don't condemn all acts that occur in nature, so can you provide some reason that homosexuality should be condemned?
To say that something shouldn't be condemned because it occurs in nature is the premise of this debate. That's why I used my analogies.
Regardless of why we don't do certain things we see in nature, the point is, we don't condone everything that occurs in nature as acceptable human behavior.
If the laws of nature allowed for the creation of homosexuals then homosexuality is natural. To say something is unnatural is to imply that some other unknown system created it. Often when people say something is unnatural they really mean they just don't approve of it.
I have a different outlook than sosocratese, so I will respond as well.
As far as cannibalism, eating our young (which is still cannibalism) and eating feces, there are health reasons that these are not done. Diseases can easily spread this way. This is likely what lead to them being taboo in the first place.
Rape is different from a consensual relationship. We have language and can receive consent, and society is better off if half of the population doesn't have to fear going outside.
I have no problems with polygamy. The only argument against it that I have seen is religiously based.
Something that occurs in nature that would damage society or would be detrimental to health is different from what two consenting people do in private.
a quick google search on the topic will give you this.
On to your slippery slope arguments:
I'm coming from a moral nihilist's perspective, so I don't believe that right or wrong actually exist. All that matters is whether or not we have reason to behave in one way or another. If you want to claim that there is some sort of moral standard by which homosexuality and the following are inherently bad, please explain and I'll be more than happy to prove you wrong.
Cannibalism: Nothing wrong with it. It's simply a revulsion we hold. However, it would actually be beneficial especially during food shortages
Eating your young: I don't see how this would be detrimental if practiced as in the animal kingdom....during times of food shortages when the parent is no longer able to support the kid and thus must. There may also be other factors such as practiced in Sparta where disabled children were discarded and seen as not worth raising.
Eating your poop: This doesn't apply to humans as dogs eat their own feces in order to absorb vitamins created by the bacteria in their intestinal tracts. The eating of their feces improves the vitamin uptake. Humans have a diet which is varied enough as to not require such acts.
Rape: I believe we have reason to respect consent due to our complex social structure that other animals don't exhibit. It is important to consider whether or not a certain behavior as self defeating for the species. No species engages in behavior which jeopardizes the population as a whole. Disregarding the concept of consent is a self defeating point of view to take and thus is not natural.
Polygamy: Sure; even the Bible is ok with it.
I'm not aware of any research which can identify a wild animal as a homosexual. Just occasionally observing a homosexual act doesn't mean that the animal observed only behaves in a homosexual manner either.
And the argument that something occurs in nature, therefore it's okay for humans to do, seems a bit infantile.
Is cannibalism okay?
Is eating your young okay?
Is eating feces okay? (my dogs think so ;p)
What about rape? That occurs in nature.
Is this why people think it's okay to impregnate a woman and abandon her? Because wild animals don't help raise their young?
I am not personally offended, I am frustrated that you would call something found in nature "against the laws of nature" immediately following the comments showing that it is a natural occurrence. By doing so you have taken the debate into territory that was already covered.
The biological imperatives of animals go beyond those basic necessities. Those three things are neither the sole things animals strive for, nor an immutable law. If you wish to claim that something found in nature violates natural law, you should provide something other than your own opinion.
It is observed naturally in other animals. It's by definition natural
The basic biological imperative of all animals is:
That's the law of nature to which I was referring. Try not to sound so personally offended. This is debate, not argument.
homosexuality is a perversion of sex, because it is reduced to pure hedonism. Being in favor of Homosexuality is not progressive but regressive, as some of you suggest that because some animals are homosexual that it therefore allows humans to be homosexual. Human beings do not do alot of things that animals do so therefore that argument is false. The ancient greeks and romans were infamous for their gay orgies with other men and young boys, and lets be honest about the promiscuity of the gay community. They want sex, not marriage. It reduces people into objects of pleasure and not persons
You obviously don't understand the comments made previously. Homosexuality is not against the laws of nature as it is found in nature. Do a bit of research before posting your uninformed opinion as fact.
Your post is slightly confusing. Who is saying Christianity is true when it is convenient and denying it otherwise? If you mean me, I don't say Christianity is true, but I do defend Christian views periodically, as I do gay rights even though I am not gay. What relevance does any one person's views on religion have on this topic?
You say how about we look at it from your point of view, then immediately assume that God made the animals, thus not taking it from another point of view than your own. Scientists, and most of the people arguing that homosexuality is natural here, believe that animals evolved over many generations, rather than being created. They are guided by instinct as well as behavior learned from parents and peers (much like people). The difference is that people have more advanced thought and abstract thought, allowing communication, foresight and more learning. So your question is rather circular, and again not particularly relevant.
Finally, your point about the Bible not saying animals can't be homosexual is true, but casts doubt on the rest of your arguments. You are claiming that God exists and disapproves of being gay. You then have to qualify that He is OK with gay animals, just not people. Where does that distinction come from? One would think that an action God does not approve of would not be found in His creation since God isn't particularly known for making exceptions.
I am seeing that animals are gay and because God made the animals that means that it is ok. I have some arguments against that. First off, you decide that Christianity is true when it benefits you and yet you say that you do not believe in God but cannot disprove that He exist. Second, how about we look at it from your point of view? You believe that there is no God, so do animals have free will? If not, then who made it so that they don't have free will? How can you say that because a bunch of dumb animals are gay that means that it's ok for humans to be gay.
And by the way, the Bible says for humans not to be gay. The Bible never says for animals to not be gay. We don't know what God told the animals, but I do know that they would not disobey God if He told them not to do something. Animals are not tempted by Satan, they just do what they have to to survive.
Both the religious or evolution side of this argument agree.... It's wrong. It's either against a decree from a creator or against the laws of nature that require an animal to strive to procreate.
So either way... Sin or genetic mutation...
It's illogical and shouldn't exist if it isn't behavioral because the gene for homosexuality should have already died out if there is such a thing.
After making the logical argument I'd like to say... I don't care what you and your consenting partner do as long as you don't try to affect my life in any way.
I do not remember a time when I woke up and decided that I wanted to be heterosexual. Just as natural it is to be straight, I believe, it is as natural to be gay. However, it does go against the purpose of life; which in a nutshell is to survive and reproduction.
Homosexual behavior has also been seen in various animals from worms to primates. These animals are not human, and therefore do not have free will. All they have is the instincts that, from a religious perspective, we're given to them by God. There are more than 500 species that have been documented engaging in same-sex behavior (the actual number varies due to different definitions of what is classified same-sex behavior). If God made these animals who are not capable of sin, why would he consider their behavior to be sinful?
It has actually been proven that there are g spots in the rectum of men while female have none, If being gay is a sin then why did god create a g spot in men's buttas
Why? Enlightment me...
Being gay no, I agree with you. gay marriage can be a different story.
I just think that it is discusting to think otherwise, honestly. It's cruel and unjust! People that are attracted to the same sex are just as natural and as normal as a heterosexual person and who's to say that they are not? Religion? No. They are wrong, the don't hold all the answers and certainly do not hold simple morals: such as kindness and acceptance.