Homosexuality is it unnatural?

LMAO! Strangers With Candy. I love that show

All things considered, sometimes the whole 'natural vs. unnatural' dichotomy is a bit too convenient in arguments about morality.

For those who find homosexuality unnatural and hence immoral, perhaps it is worth considering the morality of aeroplanes, mobile phones and processed food products ? These things aren't very natural, but I would hesitate to call them immoral.

Just a thought ...

A few years ago, I put together my family tree. I found that the branches on my mother's side of the tree were pretty gay.

Although my second great grandfather was married briefly, his homosexuality was well documented. He lived out the last 20 years of his life with his male partner. My fourth great uncle was disowned by the Quakers, presumably for running off with his non-Quaker boyfriend. And my 21 year old cousin recently came out to my aunt and the rest of the family. Then there's me.

Interestingly, there don't seem to be any instances of gay women on my mom's side of the tree (maybe they were more secretive) and there is no evidence that there were gay men or women on my father's side.

My belief is that homosexuality is biological (and natural) and that it's been around for a long time.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Abhaya Budhil wrote: I think language is important. Different words carry different connotations, and people form their ideas about a subject based on those connotations. While saying hormonal problem definitely would allow some people to jump on the word "problem" and view it as something to be fixed, hormonal variation doesn't carry that meaning. As far as "hormonal inconsistency" being more PC, it probably is. However, I think being PC goes too far most of the time. Is there really that much of a difference between "variation" and "inconsistency"? Neither of those words has a negative connotation. Some people just have too much time on their hands when they start picking at things like that.

I think that it is important though.

The premise of any debate or conversation is rooted in the terminology used.

If we were to say that this is caused by a “problem” then it could be defined as a medical condition that we would need to find a way to fix. Then it would be up to those that “know best for us” to decide how it would best be fixed. IE: they could end up deciding that zapping a brain with electricity would “cure” someone of this. And it has happened before.

If we say that it is just a variation, then it would mean that society as a whole would need to adapt and accept a condition that is not so accepted currently. It would also have other ramifications that could translate to the legal fields. Like justifying Gay Marriages. Not that I think they need justification, but it could put it to a new precedent.

Whereas most of the conversations have been about certain aspects of the topic, we seemed to have failed in how we approach the core of the topic.

Hormonal imbalances are the cause of a great many medical conditions, and the result of medical conditions as well... Most hormonal imbalances are caused by excess oestrogen, which happens to be the stuff that's in birth control and makes its way to the water supply. Considering that for this intersex person I mentioned, hormonal imbalances in the mother are what caused the intersex condition, I think it qualifies as "problem".

Something's "naturality" does not make it more or less problematic.

Is an increase in crime caused by more crimes being committed or because more crimes are being reported?

Similarly, is an increase in homosexuality caused by there being more homosexuals, or caused by homosexuality not being quite so severely punishable?

Are you more likely to be openly gay if your peers support you or if they will ridicule you? Of course some will be regardless but if it isn't so frowned upon then it is more widely documented and thus homosexuality 'increases'...

It was known that homosexuality among soldiers in Greece was fairly common. Without the social pressure to not be homosexual people are more willing to open their minds, and hearts, to people...

I think the water supply argument is just post hoc ergo propter hoc... We have had the ability to alter the water supply at a time when people have been more expressive about themselves (1960's - post). Is it more likely that the apparent 'rise' in homosexuality is because of changes to the water supply? or because of an increase in the freedom of human expression?

As I say... I would like to see some evidence that the water supply has anything to do with it or I'm just going to call post hoc ergo propter hoc...

Ren, a problem is something that needs to be fixed. So if the hormones are causing homosexuality, and that is a problem, it follows that homosexuality is a problem and that it should be fixed so we don't have more gay people.

I also don't see a problem with intersex condition. Intersex people lead normal and full lives, just like most of the population. I don't see it as something that needs to be fixed.

I tend to agree with Akkarin that I don't really buy into the hormones in the water thing in the first place, so perhaps that opinion is why I don't regard these things as fixable or even as things that need fixing.

If homosexuality is a part of natural then why is it being selected for? Doesn’t something that pretty much takes you out of the gene pool go against natural selection? In short, you know nothing.

In humans as well as most animals, females are known to be attracted to males that have had many partners or at least show signs of having high sexual competence because they will give them sexy sons. Surprisingly for most, most homosexual men do have sex with women. There almost cheating the system by practicing on each other and then displaying a high level of sexual competence. And the gene for homosexuality is carried by the mother.

If it had anything to do with natural selection, wouldn't it have bred out by now? And since most gay couples aren't reproducing (although more are now), heterosexuals must be the ones having gay children. So it must not matter if being gay takes you out of the gene pool. There are still plenty of gay people around.

I haven't heard of any gay men having sex with women (unless it is because they are closeted). Perhaps you are thinking of bisexual men.

The first two sentences are rhetorical questions in which I argue the opposite in the following paragraph.

"I haven't heard of any gay men having sex with women", really, well then I guess it never happens if you haven't heard of it.