Homosexuality is it unnatural?

So Arcade posted a thread regarding the closing of a church that promoted a "cure" for homosexuality which can be found Here and Whyte Horse also posted the following.

Whyte Horse wrote: I believe birth control really took off in the 70's so now you're seeing massive spikes in trans population in people under the age of 43 or so. There are also massive spikes in gay, bi, lesbian, queer, etc(from 145,000 in 1990, to just under 600,000 in 2000).

Which to me sounds like he is implying homosexuality is caused by birth control, now to me homosexuality (the actual act and notion) is unnatural and by that I mean nature's purest intention is for reproduction and that requires a male and female. Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with homosexuality it is just not my life style.

So what is your view? Homosexuality - natural or unnatural?

I said there was an increase, possibly caused by environmental stressors (such as artificial female hormones). There have always been homosexuals in both humans and other species. It's pretty rare. Scientists have recently discovered there is some epigenetic effect.

"Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation."

whyte's got a point. the hormone levels in drinking water are a threat to us. Whether they cause homosexuality or other gender/sexuality issues is uncertain though.

There's also plenty of hormones in our food.

Metsu Desal wrote: So Arcade posted a thread regarding the closing of a church that promoted a "cure" for homosexuality which can be found Here and Whyte Horse also posted the following.

Whyte Horse wrote: I believe birth control really took off in the 70's so now you're seeing massive spikes in trans population in people under the age of 43 or so. There are also massive spikes in gay, bi, lesbian, queer, etc(from 145,000 in 1990, to just under 600,000 in 2000).

Which to me sounds like he is implying homosexuality is caused by birth control, now to me homosexuality (the actual act and notion) is unnatural and by that I mean nature's purest intention is for reproduction and that requires a male and female. Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with homosexuality it is just not my life style.

So what is your view? Homosexuality - natural or unnatural?

I don't care. Live and let live.

Even if the increase in homosexuality is caused by hormones, that doesn't change the fact that homosexuals have been along for longer than artificial hormones and birth control.

A lot of homophobes have suggested that you could breed out homosexuals by quarantining them so they can't reproduce. They seem to be missing the fact that homosexuals don't usually reproduce with each other and that heterosexuals produce homosexuals. So perhaps evolution wouldn't have bred out those traits because it isn't like strength or speed where the weakest and slowest traits would die before they could produce more weak and slow animals. It is something that happens randomly from parents that are heterosexual themselves (in most cases).

As far as it being natural or unnatural: Again, homosexuals have been around longer than artificial hormones in the drinking water. And there are examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I'd say it's looking like it's pretty natural, even if it might not be the best option for breeding purposes (But we also don't seem to be running low on humans anyway, so it's not a big deal if they aren't breeding).

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Even if the increase in homosexuality is caused by hormones, that doesn't change the fact that homosexuals have been along for longer than artificial hormones and birth control.

A lot of homophobes have suggested that you could breed out homosexuals by quarantining them so they can't reproduce. They seem to be missing the fact that homosexuals don't usually reproduce with each other and that heterosexuals produce homosexuals. So perhaps evolution wouldn't have bred out those traits because it isn't like strength or speed where the weakest and slowest traits would die before they could produce more weak and slow animals. It is something that happens randomly from parents that are heterosexual themselves (in most cases).

As far as it being natural or unnatural: Again, homosexuals have been around longer than artificial hormones in the drinking water. And there are examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I'd say it's looking like it's pretty natural, even if it might not be the best option for breeding purposes (But we also don't seem to be running low on humans anyway, so it's not a big deal if they aren't breeding).

then again homosexuality could be caused by a hormonal problem to begin with. In the womb or once born... Although, many different things could cause homosexuality. neurological causes, psychological causes, neonatal isssues, puberty issues, anything.... And then there's a simple matter of taste in personalities. It kind of makes sense if you're a guy, and don't really find women as "attractive" as men from a simple behavioural standpoint, to be gay. With the amount of men who believe women to be perplexing (not the good kind of perplexing), I think that without a physiological affinity for them we'd have a lot more homosexuality. (an I guess it'd be just as true for women too)
totjo's intersex person I know of told me the cause of her condition was pre-natal and related to her mother's hormones... So if that can cause someone to be intersex, it seems very plausible it can cause homosexuality.

I think the male american bison is bisexual and more homosexual than heterosexual.

ren wrote: then again homosexuality could be caused by a hormonal problem to begin with.

Out of curiosity, why is it a hormonal "problem" amd not just a variation?

Rather we are accepting of others or not, our words (even when we don't mean them too) can sting.

If it's just caused by hormones in the womb and isn't affected by external factors (like extra hormones in the environment) wouldn't that still be natural? There are plenty of things people are born with that aren't really good from an evolutionary standpoint (learning disabilities, unformed limbs, etc. but those things are still natural because they occur naturally without outside influence (at least sometimes).

Asexual reproduction exists in nature, so the male female requirement is invalid. Would you like to further narrow the discussion to only mammals? Oh, wait...


How about just humans?

*slipslipslipsliiiiiiide*

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yes, asexual reproduction exists in nature. However, even animals that do not reproduce asexually show homosexuality.