There are 8 choices, 13 votes for Ievianty's debate

Homosexuality, natural, unnatural, what does it matter?

I am aware that the topic of homosexuality has been beaten to death so much and has enough dead horses I wonder why horses are not on the endangered species list. Anyway, there's an argument that has been thrown around by both pro-gay and anti-gay people that has been bugging me for awhile and I want to fully address it once and for all. That argument is about homosexuality being natural, which basically means being born with like that or wild life taking part in it. Whether or not you're born gay has been used as an argument for it being right or wrong. People have also compared homosexuality in animals to determine if it's right or wrong for humans to be that way.

So basically, I wanna throw it out there, why does it matter if you're born that way or if animals are that way? Since when has other topics been morally and ethically judged by whether or not it's something you born with or if the wild life does it. Does negative behavior suddenly become positive if you're born that way or if animals do it? What about vice versa; does positive behavior suddenly become negative if you're not born like that or if animals are not doing it? If positive behavior is positive and negative behavior is negative, how does birth or being done by any animals who are not humans suddenly change it?

There could be a small detail or two that I overlooked on why people do consider this argument valid. If so, enlighten me, because ignorance won't do me any favors.
  • Does it really matter?
    If you love someone, then there is nothing you can do about it, no matter the gender. Just because a person in gay, lesbian, or bi, doesn't mean that other people have to be the same way. Just because a person is gay or bi doesn't mean that they're anything less than human, therefore they should be treated with equality just as straight people are.
    23%  Voted for by Wolf of Roses, bob2314, AlisonAcid.
    View 4 comments
  • :

  • the whole point of the "born that way" Argument
    Most, if not all of the anti-homosexuality people believe in some kind of god. lets look at the christian variety for a moment:
    christian's put great faith in the belief that their god is a just god. that he is the ultamate creator/judge. they believe the words that were written expressly forbid sexual contact between two men.
    Now it would be had for someone who believes those things above to also believe that someone who is born gay would be judged and deemed unworthy of heaven for something that was appart of their genetic make-up. If the gay person did not do anything too "sinful" besides the whole gay aspect and goes to hell, then their god isn't as loving as they think. Such an agrument rattles the pillar they place their god on so therefore, they say being born that way is not possible and it is a choice for that person (if you see, this co-ensides with the sin aspect) and therefore that person deserves his firey babtism.

    Note that it is their fear of their god not being what they want it to be hinges their whole outlook on gay people and not any solid proof therein.

    why we use this argument? because it makes us feel better because this way, someone made a mistake and we can get into heaven. that, and we all believe it isn't a conscious choice (i sure as hell didn't choose it in my teen years, but now i don't mind it whatsoever)
    15%  Voted for by Kazrith, bob2314.
    View 43 comments
  • :

  • Not a choice, nor in-built.
    Many great things happen by automatic means, making use of dynamic 'inputs'. If I toss 10 coins, I should not expect to call 10 in a row correctly. But, if I am in a coin tossing tournament of 10 rounds, and I win that tournament, I have won 10 coin toss games in a row! The algorithm of a tournament will produce, every time, one person who has tossed 10 winners in a row, but for the tosser there was nought in it but blind luck. The tosser wasn't really *trying* for 10 in a row so much as hoping. Because tournaments always make winners, we can beat the normal rhythm of things and overcome great obstacles (the odds of 10 coin tosses in a row) to do so.

    Human sexuality is similar, in that it is some kind of 'algorithm'. The genes for mating in a given individual might say "body, if you are male, these are attractive traits in a mate: x,y,z,a,b,c,d,etc. Some of these are more important than others. Consider B more important than F, and so on ad infinitum." This is probably wildly inaccurate in detail - I only mean to illustrate that it is a very, very complex thing indeed.

    Each and every individual is born a heterosexual. Any gene which exerted an effect along the lines of 'body, copulate with your own sex' would not continue past that generation, and would die. It is all too obvious that this explains nature's *tendency* for heterosexuality, and why examples of homosexuality are always behavioural: some circumstance(s) lead to an unconscious, autonomous misfiring of the mating/copulation mechanisms (this may or may not be permanent). The genes for mating have simply aimed their 'affections' (what they make their machine do) at the same sex instead of the opposite sex; but this does not happen without reason. The sex algorithm always makes you pair up and have intercourse, but it will not always choose the same person, and if there is a good enough reason (not necessarily good enough to your own common sense - good enough in biological terms) not to choose the opposite sex, or to choose the same sex, homosexuality may occur.

    Homosexuality should be taken off the moral table. "Right" and "wrong" are inappropriate words; it can only be called a 'mistake' in the sense that it does nothing for the genes of the individuals. It just is, and apart from working out exactly how and why it works, I see it as a complete nonissue.

    I do, of course, have opinions on things which could trigger such misfirings, but I'll withhold them here, except to say that I agree at least in part with Desmond Morris in his works of 1967 and 1969.
    15%  Voted for by George Bowling, Hardhittn63.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • The main problem with calling homosexuality a choice
    Pretty much everyone who is gay has had to go through a lot of soul searching during their youth as well as putting up with homophobic classmates or relatives among other things

    Straight people don't realize how often a gay high school kid hears the word fag used openly and freely, how often they hear their parents deride homosexuality and fear that they will be rejected or how often a gay kid has to pretend that some gay joke an acquaintance makes is funny when deep down it really hurts. Straight people don't understand the humiliation one feels after being outed, or the pain after being abandoned by your best friend after coming out to them. They don't understand the threats and taunting and the occasional beating. They don't understand the feeling of being completely alone and the occasional night crying yourself to sleep because of it.

    Most gay people have gone through at least half the things on the list, so when some anti-gay whoever comes along and tells you that your being gay is a choice, its like being shot in the stomach. It's as if the entirety of all you've gone through in your process to accept yourself has been completely wiped off the grid and you're left there dumbstruck; all the guilt and blame is all at once placed on you for something that you were nothing but a victim in.

    That's why pro-gay activists get all in your face about homosexuality being natural and unchosen, not because it makes the argument for homosexuality "better", but because it hits that nerve deep down within you and that after dealing with so much over something that shouldn't even be a big deal, enough is enough.

    (P.S.-i know i haven't been on in a really long time. The reason being that when allphilosophy upgraded that long time ago, up until recently my computer would freeze whenever I tried to log on to this site, so I couldn't even ask for help for the problem. So basically I've been lurking around unlogged, keeping track of what's going on)
    15%  Voted for by cosmosis, Kazrith.
    View 9 comments
  • :

  • I think this is a poor argument, on both sides.
    Speaking as a LGBT person (the T part, despite little to no progress as of this typing), I think this is a poor argument when used by either side. I mean, even without comparing this argument to the extremes (like murder) as used by certain homophobias, I can see where this argument falls apart. If being gay is ok, how does it change if you're born that way or if your heart's desires somehow shift over time (if that's possible)? Going off topic for a bit...

    For example, if people can be born hateful, are people really gonna think its ok just because their born that way? Not sure about others, but I wouldn't. Like I said, how does behavior being "natural" or "unnatural" suddenly make it ok or not ok? I personally believe its human (and even animal) nature to be violent, but to me it doesn't make it any more acceptable. Also, how do numbers change this? By this I mean, does behavior or thoughts become more or less "right" or "wrong" because a few or many people are doing it? Does crime suddenly become ok if a lot of people commit it? Does love become wrong if less people starting feeling it?

    Basically, I think it's time this argument stops being used, especially by pro-gay people and instead focus on other arguments that doesn't have [what I believe to be] loopholes like this one.
    Voted for by Ievianty.
    View 13 comments
  • :

  • SECOND EDITION HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNNATURAL ,ILLOGICAL


    Here is the definition of abuse from anwers.com

    abuse (?-byuz') pronunciation
    tr.v., a•bused, a•bus•ing, a•bus•es.

    1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse:

    Here is the definition 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. Thus, it is unnatural.


    The argument:
    From a biological standpoint, every human being has reproductive organs. Reproductive organs are for reproducing. Therefore, every human being was designed to reproduce.

    It takes a relationship to reproduce, and the relationship for reproducing is heterosexuality. Human beings in that relationship are heterosexuals. Therefore, every human being was designed to be heterosexual.

    Since homosexuality relationship cannot reproduce, it doesn't need reproductive organs.
    Thus, the presence of reproductive organs in that relationship is clear evidence of artificial design error, which makes the relationship unnatural. So, from a reproducing standpoint reproductive organs are for a relationship that reproduces, which is heterosexuality.

    It therefore means that the intended relationship for human beings is heterosexuality not homosexuality.

    Since the relationship for human beings from a design standpoint is heterosexuality, it stands to reason that homosexuality is abuse.


    Analysis

    Premises


    (Premise 1) - Is it not an observable fact that normal human beings have reproductive organs?

    (Premise 2) - Is it not true that reproductive organs are for reproducing?

    (Conclusion 1)-If these two observable facts hold, the conclusion that every human being was designed to reproduce, holds.

    (Premise 3) - Is it not an observable fact that it takes a relationship to reproduce?
    (Premise 4) - Is it not an observable fact that it takes a relationship of a woman and a man to reproduce?

    (Conclusion 2)-If it is true that all normal human beings have reproductive organs and reproductive organs are for reproducing, and it takes a heterosexual relationship to reproduce then the conclusion that all normal human beings are designed to be heterosexual, holds.


    Since the four observable facts are true, the conclusions they support are also true.

    It therefore means this argument is sound.

    A sound argument is the truth.

    Commentary

    Human beings with reproduction organs are designed to reproduce. Human beings with reproductive organs are designed to be heterosexuals. Thus, human beings with reproductive organs are designed for heterosexual relationship.
    “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy). Thus, in the same vein, the reproductive organs on a human-being infers to an existence of design intent to reproduce.
    Only heterosexuals reproduce. Heterosexuality is a relationship for heterosexuals. Thus, all human beings with reproductive organs are designed for heterosexuality.

    Voted for by likewhatitis100.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • Look at it this way
    Well if it happens in nature isn't it natural?

    Homosexuals exist, but they will never reproduce, and that is unnatural. But being bisexual or heterosexual is natural, granted: Sexuality is about 30% nature and 70% nurture, but there are more heterosexuals and bisexuals then homosexuals. So 30% percent of our sexuality is a default drive to reproduce, and the rest is curiosity and preference. But, it is more likely that a person will have some attraction to the opposite sex, but to different extents.

    With mass culture the results of homosexuality *might* hurt the human race. Homosexuality in itself is not unnatural though.

    Some gay people say it is a choice, and the mainstreamers say it isn't. I think this supports what Ive said.
    Voted for by Hardhittn63.
    View 9 comments
  • :

  • Ever thought of it as nature way to stop over population.
    I think it is a genetic thing.If you look through history you see a link between over population and gays.Sort of natures way to stop us rabbits.

    if you look in other nations you find it is tied to population.Look at japan and china and you'll find the have a higher number of gays then the usa.

    That said.Long live gays if stright men can find two woman going at it as hot.Then as a woman i find two men going at as hot!
    Voted for by silverwindrune.
    View 3 comments
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →