Sexual Relationships
+1 y

Homosexuality is natural! Science and stuff...

All right, first let me cover why I am addressing this issue. Talking to people in real life and reading posts on this site I see that there tends to be a great misconception about homosexuality and where it comes from. Many people I see tend to think of it as a choice, or a "mistake" of evolution, or somehow not natural. To address this I will attempt to clarify the science of homosexuality, and I will also touch on psychology.

Firstly, I feel it is important to address the naturalistic fallacy. I hear many people say that homosexuality is not natural. They say this clearly misunderstanding what the term "natural" means. Natural has no basis in or reference to morality or benefit etc. Natural just means that it is something that we view naturally. So in this case they are gravely mistaken. Not only do we view homosexual tendencies throughout all people groups and across all times we also see these tendencies throughout most all mammalian species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior gives a list of mammalian species that exhibit same sex behavior. In case you do not have the time to take it I will give one of the best examples. Sheep. 10% of rams make long term partners with only other rams and have sex with only them.

Secondly there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (particularly in males.) Here is an abstract of one such research article pertaining to male homosexuality and xq28 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896 basically there is a strong link between genetics and same sex behavior.

Thirdly, many people argue on the point that it is "wrong" because it somehow hurts humanity. They say that because homosexuals are "unable" to procreate they somehow are harmful to society. On this point I'd like to interject that this makes no sense. First off our world has a massive problem with overpopulation. Secondly, gay people can still procreate. One such example is my friends father who was married but then accepted who he was and has been happily with his partner ever since. Thirdly, these people never argue that same sex couples who are uanble to procreate for whatever reason are in some way immoral, because that would be asinine. Just as it is asinine to argue that homosexuality is immoral for this reason.

Lastly, when it comes to psychology sexuality is rarely purely hetero or homo. Instead most people score somewhere on the continuum. Research has shown that most men and women have had a same sex thought at least once in their life. “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."- Kinsey. Because of this we have a scale to rate hetero-homo tendencies (namely the kinsey scale).

Anyway those are some of my thoughts on the issue. I apologize if it didn't make too much sense, I'm slightly scatterbrained at the moment. Let me know your thoughts!

Homosexuality is natural! Science and stuff...

Adventures in Gay because they're hilarious XP

0 0

Most Helpful Guy

  • Yeah... no.

    For one, it really doesn't matter if some behavior is common in the animal kingdom. Civilization is the opposite of natural. You want natural, go find some remote tribe living in huts in the Amazon, or some group of headhunters in Africa. Fun!

    Civilization is based on the opposite of nature. On an agreed set of rules and codes of conduct done for the benefit of the group. Cannibalism is extremely common among the animal kingdom, yet we recognize we must banish it. Incest is also fine among animals, yet we recognize it must be banned. The family unit is also mostly unheard of in the animal kingdom, yet it is vital to humans.

    we also discourage smoking, for example, because it costs society.

    According to the CDC, men who have sex with men are 2% of the population in the USA... and have 17 times higher rate of anal cancer, and account for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases. They also have 57% of HIV infections. This is despite the whole "OMG AIDS IS GOING TO KILL US ALL WEAR CONDOMS IF YOU HAVE CASUAL SEX!" society scare that happened literally like 40 years ago. Gay were too stupid to get the message. Or HIV is a magical gay killer. Or gays love HIV. One of above, logically.

    https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
    www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

    So really, society has a vested interest in banning gay sex, really, based on the sheer medical cost and health cost to the population.

    And by the way, the professionals don't agree with you that being gay is genetic. In the USA, the American Psychological Association won't say being gay is genetic.
    In Britain, the Royal College of Psychiatry says being gay is caused by both nature and nurture. Kinda like what happened to all those people batman had locked in arkham, really.

    www.theglobaldispatch.com/.../
    https://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97940/

    So my question for you is... why should society not do their best to discourage homosexuality, up to making it illegal?

    We have solid proof that being gay correlates to incredibly high risk of horrible and extremely costly health problems, that costs society a fortune and has a horrible impact on people afflicted.

    We do not have proof that being gay is a genetic trait like being black.

    Why should homosexuality be tolerated?

    • lol you seem to take the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to the naturalistic fallacy. Instead of what is natural being good, you seem to state that what is natural is bad! XP Firstly civilization is natural. It appears in nature, and humans aren't the only ones that exhibit this behavior so you are simply wrong. We have a large amount of evidence that it is at least in part genetically based. Why should you tolerate it? Because it's not your body... You seem to leave out the fact that homosexual women have far less incidence of all STD's, in case you didn't know they are also homosexual as well.

    • Civilization is composed of what is almost entirely unnatural in the animal kingdom. What animal can compare? Ants and termites, perhaps? They do work together to build a home. What other living being in the world, besides humans, has anything remotely resembling civilization? Chimps? Female chimps have a common habit of walking up to other females in their group... and grabbing their infants, running off, and eating them. Western Civilization, human civilization, is based on things entirely unseen in the animal world, and even other parts of the world. "Because it's not your body." Is that why society is not very tolerant of drug addicts? Why cops have a habit of arresting underage drinkers? Why suicidal people are involuntarily committed to medical facilities? Society is based on all of us controlling our behavior for the good of the group, and controlling others similarly for the good of the group. Why do you think polygamy/bigamy carries a prison sentence?

    • About those laws, it's largely a result of religious purposes. 60 years ago everyone was doing opiates, amphetamines etc. Wolves have a very structured "civilization" if you want to call it that. Other humans have the propensity of waking each other up with a bullet to the head. WE aren't that much different from our chimp cousins.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • Here here! Agree.

    Also, infertile people can't have babies without assistance. So, it's purely a personal problem when people gripe about same sex couples using outside sources to have a child. Because I'm sure those people don't care about hetero couples doing the same thing.

    And it's kinda crazy that people think people would CHOSE to be viewed/treated as second class citizens (but yay progress) It's a natural feeling that's a part of their biology.

    • Haha agreed! Thanks

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

1 7

  • nice take! it makes perfect sense :)

    • Thanks!

  • I just don't see the reason for hate against them we should shame and belittle animal fuckers, pedophiles etc "you get where I'm going right?" instead

    • That's right, just because some weird shit happens in the nature sometimes don't mean it's normal, there are glitchs in nature as well, and it's don't makes those glitchs as a good thing. :)

    • @Berethor When you talk about most all mammals, it is obviously not something that "sometimes happens" or a "glitch" @Ulyss I don't understand your comment. Are you trying to insinuate that love or sex between two consenting members of the same sex is the same as an adult taking advantage of a defenseless child or animal?

    • We shouldn't treat people who have sex of the same sex as scum

    • Show All

  • Natural =/= Natural Law

    Furthermore, the problem most people have isn't with homosexuality itself but with homosexual actions. Not that it gives them an excuse to tell others what they can and cannot do, but to put the erroneous accusations of "homophobia" and/or hatred to rest that the world's religions are prejudiced homosexuals themselves.

    The problem with homosexual marriage is the dangerous precedent it sets for government. Whereas heterosexual marriage is rooted firmly in the natural law and thus the government subsidization is merely a recognition of that, homosexual "marriage" has no basis in the natural law and therefore government subsidization is an act of the government throwing the natural law out the window and defining reality for itself.

    In turn, homosexual marriage DOES harm heterosexual marriage because it reduces our marriages to a mere government decision whereas previously they were rooted in the natural law which the government merely recognized.

    • I just read this, but I'm driving right now. So I'll have to get back to it later, but it appears that you are making the naturalistic fallacy yet again. In addition I think your logic is flawed, but I will get back to you later. Thanks for your input though

    • First off, again you seem to think that nature, or "natural law" as you put it has some sort of purpose or benefit. In nature we see creatures killing each other over territory all the time. WE however do not believe this is good, but it is still natural. We know this because we see it in nature. You act as though hetero-marriage is a thing that can be harmed. How is it hurt? What are the problems with it being hurt? etc etc. I must also simply disagree with the notion. Rams make lifelong partners with the same sex at a 10% rate. That seems pretty natural.

    • The problem is that you are equivocating nature with the natural law. What you say would be true were I referring merely to the former, but my reference is to the latter. Now I don't think you are intentionally doing this, therefore I will take the time of day to briefly explain it. The natural law is an older philosophical concept stemming to at least Aristotle that was articulated more in depth by the Scholastics during the Middle Ages like Thomas Aquinas. In short, it is rooted not merely in "what is natural" but in a serious of objective inquiries (some natural, some philosophical) about the nature of something. This is the basis of the English concept of common-law which in turn underlies our American Constitution. This means that our government merely recognizes that which already exists via the natural law. Now since same-sex marriage has no basis in the natural law, the government would actually be creating it. They gain the power to not only recognize

    • Show All

  • This is well constructed. It has the beginnings of a strong persuasive argument.

    • Thanks, I wasn't sure if I was making sense. I was really tired when I was writing it.

  • I never understood peoples stances, that you presented, against homosexuality. Now I do not see that it is right, mainly because I am Christian. Now that being said I do believe people have a right to live life the way they want, and I am in no place to judge them. Now whether it is a choice or not, well I can't say because I am not homosexual. I am not trying to shut you down or anything, just sharing my experience.

    • That's fine! I appreciate your answer and am glad you shared it! Just some food for thought though. When did you choose to be straight? Likely your answer will be never, you can choose who you have sex with, but who you are attracted to is another matter entirely. Think of it this way, my favorite color is black. I can choose not to paint with that color, but that doesn't change the fact that it's my favorite color, and I can't really change what my favorite color is now can I?

  • Nice take, Wrong logic.

    Okay, let me begin by claiming that homosexuality is not natural. And not in any way you proved that it is natural.. You just sighted some examples of homosexuality in animal population as well.. Well, it's not natural there too. They are abnormal creatures. So are homosexual people. And abnormal doesn't need to be a 'bad' word. If a blind guy says he is perfectly normal, he has some trouble accepting reality. Same with homosexuality.

    Another point you mentioned was that it is not harmful to the society.. At the current human population, they are absolutely 0 threat to the species. I agree.. but that does not prove that they are normal either.

    Talking about species, reproduction is the most important process in survival of our species.. and the species has a 'brain' of it's own, it's present inside us, in our DNA. (however vague that might sound, I have a perfectly sound explanation for it, cannot explain it in short though)
    It's a long code, and sometimes mistakes happen, men's and women's brains are wired differently.. In the process of birth, if the DNA screws up in copying some code, mistakes happen. and this abnormality results in homosexual people / blind / deaf / handicap / mutations etc etc.

    Does it mean we should hate them for who they are? NO. It was the DNA's mistake, not theirs' . But my point is, accepting the fact that it's not normal to be born as a homosexual.

    • Wait.. did you just say that homosexuality is a disability? Wow. That must have been the stupidest thing I've heard, ever.

    • @Jxpxtxr No , homosexuality came from the same parent as blind , deaf , handicap, mutations came, but it's not the same.. Even though it's more relatable with a mutation than a handicap. Well, if you cannot even interpret 'the stupidest thing you've ever heard' correctly, just imagine, how stupid you would be.

    • Well, what's your scientific proof for your claim? And I expect an ACTUALLY reliable & proven source for this one.

    • Show All

  • of topic a bit but homosexuality could harm certain countries like Italy with a low birth rate if say their LGBTQ community rose to 10%, secondly I dont think the world overpopulation theory is correct its been proven false

    • Well the first point isn't really correct. Research has shown that the siblings of homosexual people have greater reproductive success that actually overcomes the "detriment" to the population of having a few members removed. It appears that this may be a sort of natural way to increase reproductive success. Secondly, how so? I suppose I could be persuaded that your second point is true, although I haven't seen any research proving such.

    • The overpopulation model main point is food security and think tanks have been made that show if with current out put of food if it was distributed equally it would be more than enough that is not even considering bringing in new technology and diversify the food stock insects more farmed fish etc for protein and traditional livestock feed instead being for human consumption like corn etc some have even suggested there's potential for 80 billion humans to live on earth comfortably

    • But Im sceptic that the siblings of Homosexuals compensating for lack of birth of their siblings

    • Show All

  • Yeah but there is also lots of evidence in the animal kingdom for sex with other species, sex with a dead body, immature sex & etc. Your argument to natural behavior by example of animals would seem to cover that as well.

    'Natural' just doesn't mean much of anything. You'd be better arguing from harm, what harm does it do? And from liberty, if something does no one else any harm you should be allowed to do it as a matter of personal liberty.

    • That's what I said... I think you misunderstood. I was saying that people who say homosexuality is not natural are committing the naturalistic fallacy. Firstly, they assume that because something is natural it is good, and secondly they are wrong. It is natural. That simply means that we see it in nature.

Home >  Sexual Relationships  > Homosexuality is natural! Science and stuff...