Political Crossfire Forums

Nixon · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 2631 Location: Purgatory

I don't have an answer for sure either way. But I will say this.

The reason people think its "unnatural" is because nature forces men to like women(and vice versa), for the same reason nature forces male turtles to like female turtles, or male samon to like female samon: because it will result in procreation of the species, which is basically the goal of any species.

Its kind of like a virus in a way. A virus has only one goal: to spread. To continue surviving at any costs. It would be "unnatural" for a virus to act otherwise. It has been programmed by nature to act a certain way. The same rings true with a species of animal or plant. They are programmed to procreate in a certain form or fashion. When they reject that form, they are, by nature's law's, unnatural.

not that theirs anything wrong with it.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

If its unnatural why

a. dose it occur in the natural world

b. is it physical possible.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7101 Location: Herefordshire

The homosexuality debate is about morals, culture and society - anything else is really a side issue. Deciding whether homosexuality is a natural abnormality or some kind of psychological issue still fails to address all major questions of it posed by critics

Sukoi · Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 1581 Location: Texakistan

It doesn't really matter, does it? It's a reality, isn't it? Whether it's natural or not is really irrelivant (although animals have been known to engage in it).

Dookiestix · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject:

The reason people think something that has existed amongst practically every living creature to be unnatural is primarily a result of religion and fear. Those two elements are the primary reasons why many people still fear homosexuals.

And I'm not just talking about diehard heterosexuals, but latent homosexuals who have been taught to hate the very same community their own sexuality may be identifying with.

The contradictions are primarily driven by one's internal beliefs, not one's physical conditions.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7101 Location: Herefordshire

thefranzkafkafront wrote: If its unnatural why

a. dose it occur in the natural world

It probably is natural (though science isn't conclusive) but the issue raised is whether its 'normal', and that is surely isn't

thefranzkafkafront wrote: b. is it physical possible.

Its... er... not. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?

Like I said, its an issue of morals and culture. Just becauseyou can do it doesn't make it right

Dookiestix · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject:

Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: If its unnatural why

a. dose it occur in the natural world

It probably is natural (though science isn't conclusive) but the issue raised is whether its 'normal', and that is surely isn't

thefranzkafkafront wrote: b. is it physical possible.

Its... er... not. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?

Like I said, its an issue of morals and culture. Just becauseyou can do it doesn't make it right
Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7997

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The homosexuality debate is about morals, culture and society - anything else is really a side issue. Deciding whether homosexuality is a natural abnormality or some kind of psychological issue still fails to address all major questions of it posed by critics

Great point. It's naturality is irrelevant.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5624 Location: Fulton, Ks

Dookiestix wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: If its unnatural why

a. dose it occur in the natural world

It probably is natural (though science isn't conclusive) but the issue raised is whether its 'normal', and that is surely isn't

thefranzkafkafront wrote: b. is it physical possible.

Its... er... not. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?

Like I said, its an issue of morals and culture. Just becauseyou can do it doesn't make it right
Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?

Walking wherever you need to go would be natural, however it's not hardly normal is it?

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2259 Location: Edinburgh

Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: If its unnatural why

a. dose it occur in the natural world

It probably is natural (though science isn't conclusive) but the issue raised is whether its 'normal', and that is surely isn't

How does whether it is normal or not make any difference?

Dookiestix · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject:

Prole wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: If its unnatural why

a. dose it occur in the natural world

It probably is natural (though science isn't conclusive) but the issue raised is whether its 'normal', and that is surely isn't

How does whether it is normal or not make any difference?
It's one's own beliefs and moralities that make homosexuality either normal and/or not normal in their respective eye.

But it is religion that has always historically fueled the fire in this regard.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7101 Location: Herefordshire

Dookiestix wrote:
Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?

If one has two heads without the interference of any drugs or anything at all, and is born and develops like one headed people are, then this event was "natural". However having two heads is not "normal" since humans are designed with one head.

On the gay issue, if less than 3% of the population call themselves homosexual, and like Nixon talked about the event of being attracted to the same sex makes no scientic logic, then in what sense is homosexuality "normal"?

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7101 Location: Herefordshire

Dookiestix wrote:

But it is religion that has always historically fueled the fire in this regard.

Only if the assertion that "men like women" will also be considered a repeat of religious doctrine :roll:

Religion is only relevant as to the extent that it influences morality and culture. And its not a coincidence that it largely isn't religion vs religion on this, but theist vs atheist

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

Really, this question is irrelevant. Plastic and modern medicine are unnatural.

The question we need to be asking ourselves is whether or not it's wrong. Ain't seen a shred of evidence to the effect that it is, and my religion doesn't have anything to say about it that I'm aware of.

VinceDee · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject:

I should think the differences between the two definintions of "normal" and "natural" might be in order:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/normal

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural

Homosexuality is, by it's very uncommonality alone, and using the dictionary definition (which is also the generally accepted definition), not normal.

Homosexuality can be argued to be natural, however, according to this definition: 5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.

I think history has shown that there is the ability in most people, in certain circumstances, to be sexually promiscuous with their own gender (usually when a willing member of the opposite sex isn't available). But humans are physically made to symbiotically complement one another. Men have penises, women have vaginas, the purpose of which is to biologically reproduce. We're driven instinctually to reproduce, so that is the most natural sexual relationship.

Personally, I think adults should have the right to engage in whatever sexual play they want, but when it comes to politicizing the issues (like gay marriage or adopting kids) I become less tolerant.

Alizard · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject:

Sukoi wrote: It doesn't really matter, does it? It's a reality, isn't it? Whether it's natural or not is really irrelivant (although animals have been known to engage in it). Not only known to, but regularly seen in animal populations in roughly the same percentage as humans (3 - 5%).

It's not known if male animals lie about it out of fear of not looking "macho" or if male animals find the idea of two female animals going at it to be incredibly arousing........ :lol:

They are not talking on that....

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 508 Location: Raleigh, NC

Most of the people that "defend" homosexuality only do so because it's a democratic (liberal) talking point. What's sad as that many gay people actually are tricked into believing that the left gives a s**t about them. That's just an observation I had.

I have to say, the point of "why is it physically possible" is a pretty stupid point, if you can even call it that. Many people point to the fact that homosexuality "occurs in nature." Most of you probably haven't even done your research on this, you just heard someone else say it. To those of you that have done your research, good for you. It turns out we're not that different from the animals. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural. Two men/women cannot produce a baby. The attraction to the other sex is an evolutionary mechanism that developed in order to keep various mammals alive.

Plastic and modern medicines created by man to keep man alive.

I don't believe being gay makes you a "bad person" anymore than being straight makes you a bad person. People will decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5393 Location: Taxatraz

Dookiestix wrote: Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?
Well, normal is a statistical term. It might be perfectly natural for certain people to return to caves and hunt for food using spears, but if they were in the minority, such people would not be considered 'normal'. Being smart or being dumb or being anywhere in between might be natural, but smart people are not 'normal' nor are dumb people 'normal'. Normal s*cks, if you ask me.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5624 Location: Fulton, Ks

LDA wrote: Most of the people that "defend" homosexuality only do so because it's a democratic (liberal) talking point. What's sad as that many gay people actually are tricked into believing that the left gives a s**t about them. That's just an observation I had.

I have to say, the point of "why is it physically possible" is a pretty stupid point, if you can even call it that. Many people point to the fact that homosexuality "occurs in nature." Most of you probably haven't even done your research on this, you just heard someone else say it. To those of you that have done your research, good for you. It turns out we're not that different from the animals. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural. Two men/women cannot produce a baby. The attraction to the other sex is an evolutionary mechanism that developed in order to keep various mammals alive.

Plastic and modern medicines created by man to keep man alive.

I don't believe being gay makes you a "bad person" anymore than being straight makes you a bad person. People will decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
How you must know me to tell me why i believe in what i believe in.

The thing is "why is it physically possible" is a much better argument than "it is morally wrong... because i said so". (note i am not saying you said this but it is a [lack of] logic commonly used)

Biologically speaking? It occurs throughout nature therefore it is natural. The third definition of 'natural' is "present in or produced by nature, rather than being artificially created".

concerning plastics and modern medicine, homosexuality keeps people happy an important part in preserving life. Let's say a homosexual that would have went on to save hundreds of people is denied happiness so he/she kills him/herself now hundreds of people that would have been 'preserving the species' don't get the chance too.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Dookiestix wrote:
Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?

If one has two heads without the interference of any drugs or anything at all, and is born and develops like one headed people are, then this event was "natural". However having two heads is not "normal" since humans are designed with one head.

On the gay issue, if less than 3% of the population call themselves homosexual, and like Nixon talked about the event of being attracted to the same sex makes no scientic logic, then in what sense is homosexuality "normal"?

Normal & natural are 2 totally different things
Also, normal is a little more subjective than natural is
Nature is full of abnormalities. That doesn't make a 2 headed 'thing' normal, but if it occurs in nature, then it is natural