There are 25 choices, 66 votes for dollar's debate

Homosexuality is Unnatural?

• Who cares

  For the billionth time, it seems plainly obvious to me that homosexuals--and people in general--cannot help who they are attracted to.
  
  But, just to make arguments easier, I pretend like we'll never know. IS homosexuality natural?! Are people simply choosing to try out a widely discriminated orientation in order to see the looks on their family's faces? Is your natural aversion to the thought of having sex of the same gender somehow absent from homosexuals without it being natural to them? The world may NEVER know.
  
  So...WHO CARES? Not all things that are natural are GOOD, and not all things that are unnatural are BAD. Explain to me what is wrong with the unnatural, icky homosexuality, and I'll gladly try and stop them.
  
  (NOTE: "They don't 'fit' together." is not a reason. People are not legos--and, in case you didn't know, they DO fit together.)

  24%  Voted for by Benedictum, Weydon, petethemeat, Sorrows Angel, intangableenigma. (16 total)

  View 55 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • Sorrows Angel
    January 22, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    awesome

    i completely agree it's not wrong and yes it is natural theres actually history of homosexuality going all the way back to the greeks where it wasn't frowend upon at all it was just like a male and female relationship (i can't spell) where as long as it started with courtship and ended in marraige (note i say marraige yes marraige came before christianity it is not just a biblical thing devorce and marraige were both ideas taken from pagan belief) thus even if it was "unnatural" at one point similarly to any introduced species the precesne of it becomes natural after while. it's been around as long as humans have walked the earth and probably longer because there are animals that act homosexually as well. so my advice get used to it and get over it.
  • • 
      likewhatitis100
      January 28, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      A R Craven
      
      
      Here is the defination of natural from Answers.com
      
      Natural:
      
      Meaning #4: (biology) functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies
      
      Homosexuality relationship has deficiencies.
      It does not satisfy the reproduction aspect.It does not reproduce.
      
      The design for all living organisms is one.It caters for reproduction.All living organisms reproduce. Heterosexuality is a relationship for reproducing.Homosexuality falls short to satisfy the human body design.It does not cater for the reproduction aspect of the human body design, an aspect that is adequately catered for by heterosexuality. So, it is on the basis of these deficiencies that homosexuality has, that makes heterosexuality the only relationship compatible with the human body design, and hence with principle of living organism, which says all livings organisms, reproduces. So, from this observation we can conclude that heterosexuality is the logical and natural relationship for human body design.
      
      Since homosexuality has deficiencies, it is not compatible with the human body design, and it is therefore unnatural relationship for human body design.
      
      
    • • 
        Alexander Hine
        May 8, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        Moron moron moron moron. Why do you think many homosexuals still desire children, perhaps it's a genetic mutation but that would still be natural. What you want is for nature to do what you tell it, but chaos is the only thing that keeps the whole shebang moving.
        Homosexuality is rife in nature! And natural does not mean lacking abnormalities - there is no normal in nature, how could there be? Evolution functions through the selection of random mutations according to their survivability in a given environment. Oh, and whatever Answers.com is, try reading a book becasue that site has led you astray.
        Chewing Glass,
        K. F.
  • 
    intangableenigma
    January 24, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    I dont understand why society cares so much about peoples orientation. I dont really care one way or another if my neighbor is homosexual or not. Nobody can change them, and your life goes on no matter what.
    People, just deal with it. Get on with your life. Care about something worth caring about.
  • 
    Applehead
    January 25, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Unfortunately I've seen two Dogs at it lol
  • 
    Weydon
    January 27, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    The only explanation of constant defamation without justification is self-torture and shame, unless brainwashed in a fervor.
    
    But very professional post. You'll be promoted yet.
  • 
    Kazrith
    January 29, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    that would all depend on what people believe to be a natural relationship. to you, all a natural relationship needs is 2 things: a penis and a vagina. sounds harsh, i know, but not once have you mentioned the stability that a loving couple can give the children. without actual love in the picture, i dont see how you can call any marriage natural.
  • 
    Nathan Explosion
    January 29, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Likewhatitis100, you feble mind is a perfect example of why infanticide can be a good part of cultures. your desprate attempt to validate you argument, by referancing a dictionary, in a philosophical debate is both pathetic and annoying.
    
    consepts and generalizations such as normal and natural are the crutches of weak minded retches that don't truelly understand anything. your so blind and simple you don't even realize that you have nothing to say but what someone else told you.
    
    you are so shacked to the opinions of other you don't even realize that you can't provide substance to your argument that you must have something else for you.
    
    Natural, normality those are primitive consepts ,they are relics from the time of a flat earth anyone that has studied modern science can tell you that nothing is natural or un-natural there is WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT. You depress me with your ignorance.
  • 
    likewhatitis100
    January 30, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    AN ARGUMENT PREMISED ON UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINATION IS VERY CONVINCING.

    Nathan Explosion
    
    Debating is about constructing arguments premised on observable facts or on universally accepted definitions.
    A valid argument is the one whose conclusion is supported by the premise. A sound argument is the one whose premise is true and the premise support the conclusion.
    
    A valid argument whose premise is true constitutes a sound argument.
    
    So, a universally accepted definition is the truth because it is universally accepted.
    Observable facts are the truth because they are facts everyone can see.
    
    So, an argument premised on the universally accepted definitions or observable facts are very convincing because universally accepted definitions or observable facts constitute the truth.
    Therefore, there is nothing wrong in premising my argument on a definition that is universally accepted.
    
  • 
    Nathan Explosion
    January 30, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    I was rude and I apologise BUT I sorry you are still wrong

    I'm sorry i was rude but however, "universally" accepted definitions are not actually an acceptable basis for an argument because something being accepted by the mass as true in no way means its true.
    
    many fundemental "facts" of the universe have been found to be less then constant or even blatently wrong.
    
    Sun the center of the universe disproven
    world falt disproven
    light a absolute constant disproven
    
    NOW
    
    humans have succcesfully caused matter to be in two places at the same time, i repeat one object two places. you want to check me on that get the Documentary WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW
    
    just because something is accepted by the majority as truth is irrelevant to its factuality and FINALLY "NATURAL" IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED TERM IT IS CULTURALLY SUBJECTIVE. further deffinitions are ever changing there for it is yet again not acceptable.
    
    Still, I was very "moody" yesterday and should not have acted as I did.
  • 
    likewhatitis100
    January 30, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    WE RELY ON THE DICTIONARY FOR DEFINITIONS

    Every word has a meaning. Natural is a word and has a meaning.Universe is a word and has a meaning.Culture is word and has meaning.Yesterday is a word and has meaning.Majority is a word and has a meaning.
    
    
    So, all words are defined in the dictionary. Thus the dictionary standardizes all definitions.
    We rely on dictionary for definitions.
    Definitions in dictionary are universally accepted.
    
    
    So , we rely on the dictionary for difinitions.
    
    
  • • ParadoxFry
      August 15, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      This is another debate, but words have no meaning but the meaning imposed on them by us. "Universe" does not have a meaning. It has no intrinsic value, and represents nothing unless we all agree what it represents. At which time it becomes a convention. Languages are inherently flawed. Intelegent discourse relies on these conventiones, and in this specific case "Natural" is far too broad a term to be rationally investigated.
      
      This thread does not discuss if homosexuality is "good" or "bad" (again, constructs, but much more rigidly defined). We can also not know the intention with which the question was posed. What does the asker mean by "Natural"?
      
      "the dictionary" whatever that may be does not contain an absolute understanding of the word. And to say they are universally accepted is quite another thing as well.
      
      Essentially, you're telling me that our language is defined by the companies who publish dictionaries!? that's a little scary. And, where do you suppose the dictionary gets these words?
      
      "The dictionary" is alive, and always changes. You can find words like 'Cool' in the dictionary with suplemental meanings to encompass the current usage of the word.
      
      To take these writings as gospel is a bit silly.
  • 
    Weydon
    January 31, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Good...point?
  • Demise007
    February 13, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    Demise007

    First, we have to define what is "Natural". If you want to equate "Natural" to what is found in Nature, then you will find that homosexuality behaviour is infact found in human nature.
    
    But other than that, we first must establish a clear definition of "Natural" and then proceed from there.
  • 
    s0v13t
    March 6, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    again, likewhatitis fails....

    Again you fail to separate the terms "relationship" and "procreation". A relationship is in this frame of reference is a type of kinship between two people. Procreation is only a POSSIBLE product of a relationship. If you're going to be anal (no pun intentded) about definitions - make sure all your terms fit together. So NO, a homosexual relationship is not illogical or unnatural because procreation is not a root assumption of a relationship.
  • • 
      Weydon
      March 6, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      Well said
    • 
      Applehead
      March 10, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      Maybe not all relationships but definately sexual ones. Why does sex exist? to procreate not just to get you horny and enjoy yourself that is the motivation for procreating otherwise we may not bother.
    • • 
        Weydon
        March 10, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        Why do tongues exist? For taste, helping moisten your food, and help it move around to your teeth and down your throat. So anytime you use your tongue for something aside for it's general purpose--say...kissing--you may as well not bother.
        
        Just to be clear, you're against impotent or barren couples from having sex?
  • 
    DeathOfAClown12
    March 9, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    Well....

    The way I see it, homosexually certainly isn't a bad thing. It could be just as simple as that of someone who is lefthanded. Personally, I don't think sexuality is all that neccessary. I'm a firm believer in the whole 'love is blind' thing. You'll fall in love with woever you fall in love with.
  • • 
      Weydon
      March 10, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      As long as the relationship is harmless, of course.
    • • 
        DeathOfAClown12
        March 11, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        Oh yes. As long as both are happy and both are benefitting.
  • f3arn0tth3cha0s
    March 12, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    Okay...

    So I am very unsure of how to proceed here. I guess I'm a bit scared of being eaten by the wolves... However. I see homosexuality as a 'natural' relationship. I also think that in some cases a child is better off having a gay couple for parents than a "functional" family in which the father is abusive. I think that people are too focused on the 'sex' part of the issue. Sure I want to decide who I procreate with, but more importantly I want to choose who I want to be with for the rest of my life.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      March 14, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      you have proceeded well. i agree with everything you;ve said.
    • 
      Xelgaroth
      September 22, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      Oh, please. You make it sound like all heterosexual men are regularly abusive. Maybe that's not what you intended, but you make it sound that way.
      
  • 
    Ievianty
    March 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    So with the natural argument, it has to be mean something happens in nature, done by animals? It's only right if animals do it? Therefore, isn't technology wrong? In case you didn't notice, us humans are very different in how we behave from any other animals, thus being bound to the same rules wouldn't work. Have certain animals too not took part in homosexual acts?
    
    You do know ethicals and morals are subjective right? Even with the stuff mention above, how about looking at the impact on society? First off, there is no way that everyone is gonna become homosexual and stop reproducing since homosexuals are such a minority. Is everyone suppose to reproduce just because they can? What about those who are in heterosexual relationships that choose NOT to reproduce. Should that be against the law? Is there really any need to keep reproducing right now with over six billion something people? Also people tend to live longer nowadays unlike hundreds of years ago, so the birth to death rate is gonna be a lot different. If people keep reproducing at the same way, then there likely will be too many humans on Earth to support.
  • spanner
    March 22, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    think about it: hypothetically, what if society was different, if straight people were viewed as the strange, "unatural" people? think about it
  • rainy kisses
    April 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    nothing is wrong with it, nothing at all. as humans we have a higher level of thinking. if we were animals on the brink of extinction then i think this would be an issue, a reall one i mean. and then this sort of thing would not be a waste of time. but it is. i think that who ever you fall in love with is yours and the person you fell in love with's problem, or rather...it is only a problem if the other person does not share those feelings and wants to blast out the information all over that you are queer, then you have problem. i wish that people would just mind their own business. i used to let every one know that i was not a lez. sure i have short hair and wear dude's clothing but i am not. and i was really nervouse about it. but now i am bump that. let the people think that. the people i know that would be classified as 'suxually-not-normal' are the most beautiful people i know. they are careing and soo understanding. it is hard to balieve that they are hated by people that do not understand them. it is just to bad that this is an issue.
  • White Lace
    July 11, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Why exactly are you calling homosexuality "icky" because it's not. Basically in my mind, if someone can have a special, beautiful connection with someone on a level that only they and the person they love can understand, than that's fine. It's not "icky", we only think that it is because we don't understand what they're going through. Now I won't pretend to know exactly what they're going through, but I do have some what of an idea. To get my point accross let's look at the whole situation from this angle, in our society we can talk about sex and our sexuality in general whenever, but when it comes to telling people that the person we care about the most, maybe even love is a member of the same sex, then we're frowned upon by a large number of people left, right, and center, and called "icky". When in reality it's not "icky" it's a beautiful new, thing, blossoming into something even more beautiful and wonderful. Our society also views sex as something it's not, something dirty,when in reality it's a beautiful connection between that can only be understood by those two people. So someone can't get that special connection with someone of the opposite sex, but with someone of the same sex, then we should supporting them, not frowing upon them and calling them "icky", because if we think that what they're doing is "icky" then heterosexual relationships are "icky" too, because a homosexual realtionship is no different.
  • • 
      Weydon
      July 11, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      Well, now that we've thoroughly defined the arbitrary nature of "icky", you may want to give "sarcasm" a whirl.
  • tearsofasith
    July 18, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    So much to say, so little time to say it in.

    To likewhatitis100> I don't think it takes a relationship to reproduce. If someone is raped and the girl gets pregnant, don't you think that's a little wrong. Two women can have a realationship and have a child, whether it be from adoption or artificial. You do not have to be heterosexual to reproduce. I also do not think every human being was designed for this one thing by this one way. They were created to reproduce, but there are options to everything, so there is no one absolute way for everything.
    
    It should be no ones concern that these people are homo. If they have no relation to you, you have no say in their living. If they are in relation to you, you have no say in their happiness. If you want what is best for them, you want them to be happy. So let the couple be happy and live their life. It is stupid to pick out that one way of life is wrong. I don't care if it says it is in the bible, not everyone follows the bible but think they are right. Stop trying to dictate homosexual couples and people in general. They are this way for a reason, God gave us free will, let them be free and happy.
  • PoeticallyCorrect
    October 14, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Human beings are created by nature ie. the natural process, therefore anything a human being does is natural.
  • 
    likewhatitis100
    October 14, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    The debate is about sexual orientation or human relationships. Homosexuality and heterosexuality fall in this category. When the two relationships are compared, homosexuality has deficiencies.These deficiencies makes it an unnatural relationship. A natural relation should have no deficiencies.
    So, piercing ears, wearing makeup, getting tatoos, dying hair do not fit in this category.
  • 
    likewhatitis100
    October 14, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    The debate is about sexual orientation or human relationships. Homosexuality and heterosexuality fall in this category. When the two relationships are compared, homosexuality has deficiencies.These deficiencies makes it an unnatural relationship. A natural relation should have no deficiencies.
    So, piercing ears, wearing makeup, getting tatoos, dying hair do not fit in this category.
  • tequillapixie
    November 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    AHHHHH! Yes it has a basis in fact! It takes fact into consideration but also goed beyond that. Youu kinda missed the entire concept of philosophy by making that statement
    
  • tequillapixie
    November 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    AHHHHH! Yes it has a basis in fact! It takes fact into consideration but also goed beyond that. Youu kinda missed the entire concept of philosophy by making that statement
    
  • MissMercy
    December 6, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    I agree entirely

    As a bisexual, I know for myself, that I was born this way.
    I was put through much intollerance when I was younger, and belive me, If i could of chosen back then, I would of chosen to be straight just for an easier life. But I wasn't and I couldn't.
    It is natural, and even if one belives its isn't so, homosexuality exists and therefore it has to be tolerated.
    
  • 
    IvoryRose
    February 11
    Edit | Reply
    Quite often actually.
    
    Penguins have gay relationships.
    
    So do Bonobos.
    
    Do some research before you make the argument.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: